ostap

• people are dying in East Bengal
• this suffering is preventable
• most people have, however, done nothing to prevent it, despite being relatively affluent
  Generally speaking, people have not given large sums to relief funds; they have not written to their parliamentary representatives demanding increased government assistance; they have not demonstrated in the streets, held symbolic fasts, or done anything else directed toward providing the refugees with the means to satisfy their essential needs.
• Various governmental initiatives have only resulted in ~65m of aid, despite over 400m being required for the refugees to survive for even a year.

Argument 1

Premises

• “suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad”
• if we can prevent something bad from happening, without causing anything worse, it is our moral responsibility to do it.
  if I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought to wade in and pull the child out. This will mean getting my clothes muddy, but this is insignificant, while the death of the child would presumably be a very bad thing.

Conclusions

Importantly, it does not follow from these premises that our actions (or lack thereof) should be affected by

1. Proximity
2. Whether or not we are the only person who can help
   As
3. A famine on the other side of the Earth is no less a tragedy than one right next to you, and the advances in communication that allow for aid to be spread effectively despite distance allow you to alleviate that famine just as well as you could were it in the next town over.
4. If there are multiple people in a similar position not acting, it may be easier personally not to act, it does not however change the moral qualification of the act. Neither does the numerosity of people standing by change the amount of responsibility on the individual - if everyone did truly donate their fair share, this would be fine. But by some people’s refusal to do their part, the burden ends up falling on the conscious members of society.
   if everyone does what he ought to do, the result will not be as good as it would be if everyone did a little less than he ought to do, or if only some do all that they ought to do

Argument 2

Currently, giving money away is viewed as supererogatory - good, but not morally mandatory. Singer contends, however, that not giving is morally wrong, as spending money on preventing somebody from starving is much better than buying clothes or other items that are closer to luxury than any immediate importance.

Counterpoint 1

By giving as much as they can as private individuals, people discourage governmental help and allow for other members of their society to give less.

Singer responds by saying that

• He sees no proof of this statement
  And that, furthermore,
• refusing to give privately would make the government assume its citizens aren’t interested in resolving whatever issue is at hand, this discouraging massive governmental aid

Counterpoint 2

Relieving famine is not an actual solution to the problem, and it instead simply kicks the can down the road if proper population control is not implemented. “If we save the Bengal refugees now, others, perhaps the children of these refugees, will face starvation in a few years’ time. ”

To this Singer says that if one recognizes famine is bad, then they must still make an effort to relieve this suffering, though instead of donating to famine relief they should instead support organizations that promote population control.