Famine, Affluence, and Morality Essay

Whilst reading Singers ideas of a ball-shaped village in which a person is compel to maintenance somevirtuoso in need disregarding of proximity, has incorrupt bearing, but also portrays a or else one sided view of what we consider as percentage some other starving nations in need. For example, approximately 1 in 8 Ameri displaces live below the meagerness line, in saying this the question comes to mind, why we should be extend toed with poverty in other nations without depression worrying about our own problems.When presented with Singers views concerning benefactoring other third world nations and the guilty spirit he implies by his article, it is imperative that the reader not regulate so wrapped up into whats outstrip for the orbiculate community and start thinking whats best for each sovereign nation. I do not fully disagree with the points presented by lance Signer, but, I look that industrialized nations much(prenominal) as the States argon facing their own p roblems that mustiness be resolved first before we mess start worrying about other nations.For example, American families are cosmos forced to pay vex on a debt that was created out of thin air, by this I am referring to the current economic debut known as the Federal Reserve which has been a thorn in the side of each nonexempt American, it was the federal reserve act of 1913, which would force the American people into Inflation, Deflation, never ending debt, slavery, and bondage through money created out of thin air and sell to the treasury, at interest, for its bonds, which are guaranteed by the American taxpayer. gibe to the Human poverty index, the unify States ranked 16th, which is one rank below the United Kingdom (Thoren & Warner, pg. 23). I perplex these problems should be solved first, before we concern ourselves with what is happening with other countries around the world.Whilst arguing what I feel will be of the most improvement to the country in which I live , I feel that once these problems are solved, it would be wise to tending other nations, not just because of the business relationships that could receive through such processes, but also because of the global image such feats would produce.For example, during World War two, America developed a weapon thats specialism was unknown until its time, the Atomic Bomb. The Atomic Bomb was dropped on Hiroshima in 1945, and in an effort to reduce tension between the United States and those notions within the region of Hiroshima, the United States helped rebuild Hiroshima. The point in all this being that by helping other nations the United States can acquire new allies and develop constant business relationships.Furthermore, Peter Singer claims that although there is a common distinction between duty and supererogation, this does not justify such a distinction. I feel that it is morally right to contribute to those nations which are less(prenominal) fortunate than we are, but this view of morality must be in accordance with a moral code the ordinary man can interrelate to. For instance, the ordinary man, being asked to do things he/she considers unnecessary, could vector sum in a general breakdown of complaisance amongst the citizens of that particular country.As relegated earlier, there must be a balance between the essence of aid we permit other countries to have, and the amount of aid we give ourselves. How can one nation help another, if that nation is suffering from the same conditions? It is imperative to the survival of America that its economic system is sound, and its industry provides full decent paying jobs for its citizens. Considering Americas current situation, I powerfully feel that certain major problems, such as unemployment and the countrys economic system should be the first priority, then helping other countries in need would be the second most significant priority.Singers article contains some(prenominal) parallels with the pervious vi ewpoints discussed, on page six he state We ought to be preventing as much suffering as we can without sacrificing something else of comparable value (Singer, pg 5). This statement contains much wisdom. Singers view point considering those citizens who have accumulated extraordinary(p) amounts of wealth, and the need for them to give there surplus wealth to the less fortunate closely resembles the theology of some(prenominal) religious institutions.While although I believe that those citizens that are more fortunate than others should be more swayed to give an amount greater than those individuals who are less fortunate, I do not believe they should be make to do so. If those individuals, who worked hard, and accumulated an extraordinary, amount of wealth, were forced to donate more than those who are less fortunate, the system itself would be incredibly flawed. Many people forget that many of those individuals who have accumulated vast amounts of wealth did so through running a successful business, which, in some instances, employs a great number of people. When forcing such individuals to donate more, employee wages could be affected.In conclusion, eon I do not agree with every point made by Mr. Peter Singer, I feel that helping developing nations is an essential aspect in developing peaceful relationships amongst nations. Furthermore, it is essential that citizens confused in helping developing countries should not be forced to pay more than they can abide without reducing their standard of living. It is imperative that underdeveloped nations receive the help needed, but also the citizens contributing to those nations donate an amount that can be agreed upon.ReferencesThoren & Warner. The legality in Money Book. Chagrin Falls Ohio, 1986Signer, Peter. Famine, Affluence, and Morality. doctrine and Public Affairs1972