Question

• Peter Singer, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”

How does the drowning child analogy demonstrate our obligation to help others far away?

How much are we obligated to give up?

What is the difference between the strong version and moderate version of Singer’s principle?

Answer 1

Peter singer morality view on individuals responsible to prevent migrant deaths..Drowning child problem and geographical distance between a person In need when the child Drowning in a pond and the potential moral obligation..It is consistently guilty of failing to save the child..human they are not using humanitarian to save the child..when the child starving for saving the life anyone would have save the life of child that giving famine aid is not important..

Moral principle in drowning child case to have inconsistent beliefs..Peter singer made two priniciples that strong and moderate version..

Strong version needs to prevent bad things from such incidents happening even the cost of our life would be very high..That is the level of marginal utility..But in drowning child case the rescuer showed only sacrifice not strong version of the principles..

Moderate version should prevent such things happening unless doing so would involve any moral sacrifice..For doing this we should not wait for anything inorder to save the child..