Both authors take different philosophical approaches. Singer is responding as a Utilitarian, and O’ Neill is giving a Kantian point of view. This problem solution essay format paper seeks to dissect both feedbacks by comparing and contrasting two concepts and establishing the author that is being more compelling.
Peter Singer bases his essay ”Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, around the happenings and occurrences of the famine that struck East Bengal, India, in November 1971. During this period of time, there was a dire need for food, shelter, and medical care. Singer suggests taking many steps at various levels to alleviate the suffering of nine million people in Bengal. For instance, at a personal rate, individuals could hold demonstrations on the streets or write to their respective parliamentary representatives asking them to be more involved in funding. At the executive grade, governments could provide the relief in the form of massive donations to affected persons. The author criticizes state authorities for prioritizing the development of their own countries to the welfare of people suffering worldwide.
Singer uses the above case and facts to put forward his main argument. If it is within our ability and influence to avert an unpleasant occurrence of events, without sacrificing anything of equal or greater moral importance, we are thereby morally bound to do it. Singer then proceeds to expound on this argument, defending it at all stages. He argues that neither our proximity to people in need nor the number of other individuals involved lessens our obligation to do what is morally right.
In the essay “Kantian Approaches to Some Famine Problems” O'Neill chooses to base the arguments on the “Formula of the End in Itself,” which is a version of the Categorical Imperatives. It stems from the examination of maxims and intentions. Kant condemns the use of humanity as a mere prop or tool for personal or hidden intentions. O'Neill further adds that this approach requires that we do no injustice even in times of famine, but should seek instead to fulfill some of the maxims of other people as much as is in our power to do so. This kind of selfless logic prohibits, for instance, greed amongst the community facing drought or exploitation of affected nations by other more powerful countries.
O’Neill further goes ahead to describe the primary task, which requires us to assist others to develop their individual and independent capacity to look for their ends. The fulfillment of this assignment allows persons or community receiving the aid to achieve self-sustenance in the future.
Singer approaches the question of famine as a moral issue from a utilitarian’s perspective. He argues that the individuals who are better off (the affluent) should do more to support and help those ones suffering from the results of famine. He poses an example that involves buying oneself flashy expensive clothes for the sole reason of looking nice as an immoral act. He insists that this money could instead be used as a relief to ease the burden of affected communities. Singer also calls out specific countries such as Australia whose help amounts to less than one-twelfth of the cost of constructing the Opera House in Sydney. This line of thought is a classic utilitarianism argument since he suggests using this money to help the less fortunate ones.
O’Neill, on the other hand, bases the logic and reasoning on the Kantian Categorical Imperative. She proposes some actions to be carried out to deal with famine. The author suggests that even in the pursuit of freedom from starvation, nobody ought to be used as a mere means to an end, but that the affected nations should be empowered to achieve their ends.
The main significant difference between these two concepts is that Kant’s theory focuses more on the actions and deeds carried out and not necessarily the results achieved. The reverse one is true for the utilitarian idea, which is more results-oriented. This particular difference remains the most fundamental one between the two ones in that the Kantian method requires us to view an act as either right or wrong without taking into account the end result consequentially achieved. Meanwhile, in utilitarianism, if an action produces a desirable effect, then it is deemed right.
Another difference comes up in the way the authors handle the issue of proximity to the affected state. Singer argues that nothing undermines our duty to help in easing the burden of famine, not even proximity. All countries, even those ones that are geographically located far from the affected nation, have a role to play in a fight against famine. He claims that since the welfare of humans is at stake, we are all entitled to help to the suffering individuals and nations without exempting distant countries. O’Neill, on the other hand, states that it is difficult to comprehend what a Kantian moral theory would require for those persons living far from famine-stricken areas. She points out that the duties and responsibilities of those people that live among or near famine regions are more defined than those ones that do not.
The most glaring and evident of similarities is the desire for both methods to alleviate the plight of famine. Both concepts identify this matter as a bad thing and attempt to find some ways of overcoming it. Both ways try to rally people to work towards achieving this end.
The author of the more compelling argument is Peter Singer. His essay is well explained and easy to follow. He supports all his arguments very convincingly, giving examples as he goes along. Further, he can fully and adequately relate his logic to the question of famine and explores different avenues of solving this challenge. He also tackles the various objections brought forward against his theory by multiple writers and tries to clarify these arising matters. Moreover, he also ties his way of reasoning very well to his utilitarian beliefs. All these factors make his case overall more compelling and more persuasive.
