Here are some facts to set things off:
In a Asia, Africa, and Latin American countries well over 500 million are living in absolute poverty. Drowning.
Every year 15 million children die of hunger. Drowning.
1 of 12 people worldwide is malnourished, including 160 million children under the age of 5. Drowning.
Every 3.6 seconds someone dies of hunger. Drowning.
All of these people are drowning and we are far enough from them to run over and save them. The question is should we save these people, if there are capable people closer to them than we are? Why doesn’t the best swimmer go save them? Or the person with a boat? Are the people who are already disabled morally wrong for standing by and watching them drown?
Peter singer takes Famine, Affluence, and Morality and gives an excellent direction on the right thing to do. I absolutely agree that if there is a child drowing in a shallow pond we ought to save that child in exchange for muddied clothes. This world has millions of drowing kids but we spend so much time pointing fingers at who should be helping them instead of actually going. By the time we’ve made the biggest boat and the bred the fastest swimmers, all those drowing children are 20 feet deep. Thats the nature of our society. I feel in the deep recesses of our minds we believe if it’s not immediately affecting us then the degree of morality to do something is lessened. For example, a kid get bullied. You or your best friend are not getting bullied so for you to walk by and not notice is not completely morally wrong because you and your best friend felt like it was wrong. Its a division between action and thought and this division is prominent in all “drown” cases.
Peter indirectly states that drowning is as bad as dying from starvation. Factually, you die faster from drowning (Personally, I’d rather drown than die from starvation). He says philosophically everything in his literary piece is meaningless if it is not acted upon but it has to start somewhere. Although we (as a society) have implemented foundation after foundation to save these millions of “drowning” people, it is never enough. Forum boards yell, “don’t make so many babies; get help from your own government; learn to fish; make a change for yourself; help yourselves.” These forum board discussers have never drowned or came close to it. The reality is government surpress, food is scarce, and life is unfair. I’m not sure where you all stand but I’m on board with Singers point of view. If we can save a life then it is morally right to do so if the cost is not our own life. My question is where can society start.
If we shut down all the buffets in America, how many starving kids will survive? No, Vegas won’t allow that. I guess we can wait for the cure all pill to be discovered but then at that point what will we do about overpopulation?