Peter Singer and Millenium Development Goals

303 Words2 Pages
Singer’s argument could be altered slightly to support the Millennium Development Goal of eradicating extreme poverty and hunger. Singer argues that suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad; this argument is a strong and valid argument that is hard to deny, and it also supports the first Millennium Development Goal. Singer also argues that ‘anything we can do to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, is something we ought, morally, to do.’ This argument also supports the first MDG and is a valid argument but it is also weak because it could be disputed by other views and or obligations. Singer could alter this argument to argue that; In order to prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care, it is up to those of us who can afford to take on the responsibility and obligations of helping the poor, to do so in order to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger. Altering Singer’s original argument makes it less weak and also makes the premises more plausible because it allows the reader to put him/her self into the picture, and to overall convince those people to fell obligated to help with famine relief. Singer’s third argument is that ‘providing famine relief to the Bengali refugees is something we can do to prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care.’ This is a very likely and valid argument, it is simply stated and is true and relevant to all eight of the Millennium Development Goals. The argument shows an example of a way we can help to reach the MDG’s. Overall, three of Singer’s four arguments are either valid or strong, and just one could be altered in order to be

More about Peter Singer and Millenium Development Goals

Open Document