Famine, Affluence, and Morality

The main theme of Singer’s essay is reducing human suffering. The essay was prompted by the 1971 Bangladesh crisis, but in a preface written in 2016, when ”Famine, Affluence, and Morality” was republished in an essay collection, Singer wrote that his argument is general enough to apply to any other form of human suffering. Specifically, he argues that people and governments in wealthy nations should donate money to reduce the suffering of people in less affluent countries.

In the essay, the goal of reducing human suffering is front and center from the start. The first assumption Singer adopts to build his argument is that suffering derived from things like starvation, lack of housing, and inadequate medical care is bad. He states this as a given, without evidence, sarcastically adding, “Those who disagree need read no further” (5)—a statement that makes readers wonder who would be callous enough to reject this premise. The axiom that suffering is bad and must be alleviated forms the basis for the rest of his argument, with the only variables being how much to give and under what conditions.

Singer offers two further details that extend the scope of the obligation to reduce suffering. The first is that proximity or distance has no bearing on one’s obligation to act.