Peter Singer

...

My third premise states, “in both cases of the child drowning because a man didn’t want to ruin his suit, and someone buying luxury items instead of donating to charity; death could have been prevented” looks reasonable because death could have been prevent by the actions of others. At the every beginning in both cases they had the same moral responsibility, and that is to attempt to prevent death. Just because the man was face to face with child didn’t mean he had more of a responsibility than the person buying luxury items. It is easy to see how death occurred and could’ve of been prevented in the first case so I will not spend any time on it, but it is vital to see how death occurred and could’ve been prevented in the second case. Death could’ve been prevented when donating to charity rather than buying luxury items because the money donated could’ve gone to a great cause such as getting medical attention to children in Liberia dying from ebola. The money could send more medical physicist and medicine to Liberia so patients could be treated. Since the money was consumed on luxury items instead, some children suffering from ebola never received the necessary medical treatment they needed to live. This leads to my last premise, which states, “Since no attempt to prevent death occurred in both cases, there is no moral difference”. There is no moral difference between the two because not one, the man or the person buying luxury items attempted to prevent death. Just because one was closer doesn’t mean anything, both failed to take action, thus both resulted in death.

An objection I might see someone make would be; what is the definition of an attempt. They could possibly argue that what appears to be an attempt by someone could not be what appears to be an attempt to somebody else. So they would argue that without no clear definition of an attempt, how could we possibly held morally responsible opposed to someone else that is not. All I could say to that is an attempt has to be self decided within you. What I mean by this is that we know if we tried our best to try and prevent death and or very bad things. There can’t be a clear definition of an attempt because it’s obvious that some people are capable of doing more than others. Such as someone very wealthy who can donate much more money than someone who works a minimum wage job that could only help by giving his or her time. If there was a set definition of a attempt, some might fall short even if they have tried their hardest while others succeed with giving little effort. So I personally would leave the definition of an attempt to be self decided because we know ourselves the best and know when we tried and didn’t.

Singer’s famine relief argument suggest that there is no moral difference between the man letting child drown because he doesn’t want to ruin his suit, and someone buying luxury items, because it’s our moral duty to prevent death and very bad things. I have argued in favor of his position defending his claims that it’s a psychological factor rather than a moral difference, and by explaining in my own view why there was no moral difference because there was no attempt on both sides of the party. Thus, I believe Singer is right to say that there is no moral difference despite the distance between the two cases because in the end death still occurred because there failed to be any slight attempt in both cases.

.