Careful scrutiny applied to two pages of Peter Singer\u2019s \u201cFamine, Affluence, and Morality\u201d reveals its fundamental reasoning in consequentialist logic and technological advancement, rhetorical choices through accessible language and a clever analogy, and its weak points in being overly dismissive of a perspective and making a minor contradiction. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Starting with reasoning, my annotations revealed utilitarianism\u2019s influence on Singer\u2019s conclusions. Drawing from the ideas that consequences define actions\u2019 moral good and that all lives count equally, the argument is rooted in consequentialist principles dating to Bentham and Mill. Above these utilitarian stalwarts, Singer\u2019s conclusions are more plausible for two reasons. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
For one, I cannot see actions\u2019 pain and pleasure \u201cquantities.\u201d In juxtaposing tangible choices (lives versus lattes), Singer modernizes and applies principles of utilitarianism to prescribe action.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Secondly, Singer\u2019s prescriptions seem more approachable. Rather than perpetually demanding the most beneficial action, he simply asks readers to prevent suffering whenever it causes them no comparable misery\u2014a far lower bar!<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Furthermore, Singer\u2019s integration of technological advancements makes his work more relevant. He recognizes \u201cinstant communication and swift transportation have changed the situation\u201d to improve global crisis awareness (232). Incorporating modern technology grounds his claim not in obsolete facts, but in the conditions constituting our world. As I searched for rationale to connect with, this made his ideas feel alive. As well as making his thesis appear cognizant of his readership\u2019s world, these references allow Singer to argue for disregarding proximity in philanthropy\u2014a crucial pillar of his argument. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Continuing with this theme of accessibility, after finishing reading, I noticed I did not have to look up any definitions. This was Singer\u2019s intention. His paper\u2019s goal was to persuade as many people as possible to adopt his philosophy. Instead of alienating swaths of his audience with stuffy academic vernacular, he writes in common language to spread his message en masse.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This approachable style leads us to Singer\u2019s rhetorical crown jewel: the drowning child analogy. The story works effectively for two reasons. First, it is understandable to laypeople, the importance of which I emphasized above. Second, its theme\u2014alleviating suffering through minor inconvenience\u2014applies to many situations, including well-off individuals promoting humanitarian relief. The best part is how \u201cdeceptive\u201d it is (Singer 231). Readers do not realize how transformative its principle is until we have already agreed to it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As well as developing appreciation for cases\u2019 strengths, scrupulous annotations let readers discover arguments\u2019 defects. Here, I noticed two flaws capable of engendering criticism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
First, he dismissively writes \u201cThose who disagree need read no further,\u201d casting aside those believing suffering and death aren\u2019t bad (231). Obviously, this is a ridiculous opinion likely stated by a bad faith actor. Still, he refuses to explain why such awful things are indeed awful, exposing himself to allegations of curt dismissiveness of dissenters when a thoughtful paragraph would silence these contrarians. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Secondly, Singer concedes that directing aid across the globe is \u201calmost\u201d as effective as local donations, yet identifies \u201cno possible justification for discriminating on geographical grounds\u201d (232). This is contradictory. Singer acknowledges slight efficiency advantages with local causes, which, under his logic, compel donors to marginally favor such opportunities. Even in limited capacities (e.g. prioritizing Asheville hurricane relief over Sudanese famine), this creates the geographical discrimination Singer deems unjustifiable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Putting Singer\u2019s masterpiece under the microscope of annotation allowed me to recognize his logical roots, persuasive strategies, and rare deficiencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Works Cited<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Singer, Peter. \u201cFamine, Affluence, and Morality.\u201d Philosophy and Public Affairs<\/em>, vol. 1, no. 3, spring 1972, pp. 231-232. <\/p>\n\n\n\n