Peter Singer's Argument in Famine, Affluence and Morality

In this article I will explore the discussion of Peter Singer's famine, wealth, morality. In other words, it is morally necessary to impose duties on people in need. If interpretation of his argument and conclusion is accepted, we will decide the change in our lifestyle, our responsibility and the concept of charity, and the demands of the rich are particularly high. In response to Singer's central incident, John Kekers offered his version, he marked it and pointed out several objections. The revision of this principle provided several countermeasures, but raised other problems.

"Famine, wealth, morality" is an article written by Peter Singer in 1971 and published in philosophy and public relations in 1972. It believes that HNWIs are morally obliged to donate more normal resources due to humanitarian causes than Western culture. . This article is inspired by the starvation of the Bangladesh Liberation War refugees, taking the claim as an example as an example, but singer's debate is broad, not limited to Bangladesh's example. This article is widely chosen as an example of Western ethical thinking.

New Yorker magazine states that Peter Singer is the most influential and living philosopher in the world. He cites the subject of his epoch-making essay "famine, prosperity and morality" and claims that people have the same moral obligation to people far away from them. What are our obligations to people who need it so much? The governments and individuals of the Western countries focused on this issue, mainly on the responsibilities each country should bear to immigrants and asylum seekers, and whether Western democracy should intervene to end these remote conflicts I am faced more and more. People are running away

In 1972, a young philosopher Peter Singer announced "famine, prosperity and morality" and quickly became one of the most widely discussed papers in applied ethics. Throughout this article, Singer expressed his view that we have the same moral obligation as those far from us. We believe that choosing not to send lives to the hungry people on the other side of the earth is morally equivalent to ignoring drowning children. If we can help, we have to do - and any excuses are hypocritical. Shin's extreme position on the moral obligation to others has been a call for powerful weapons and continues to challenge people's attitude towards extreme poverty. Today is also the central presence of a man who thinks that we should help other people than us.