Carolina Calvo

Humes 103

Dr. Wills

September 25, 2025

Writing Assignment #1, Annotating a Text – Famine, Affluence, and Morality by Peter Singer

Famine, Affluence, and Morality by Peter Singer was written in response to the situation in Bangladesh in 1970. Bangladesh had just gotten out of their War of Independence, and there were many deaths, close to 3 million. Millions of refugees were fleeing, and many more stayed and lived in a post-war city that made it hard to get access to basic necessities (UK National Archives). Singer uses the then-current event to base his writing on how people are obligated to give what they are able to, and only what they are able to, when people are in need– in this case, people who are suffering in Bangladesh. But first, Singer brings up that this poverty and suffering are avoidable and the decisions and actions of people– in this case, preventing so much suffering in the war– could have been prevented (Singer, 229). Singer then goes on to mention that people have no problem spending money on things that they want but don’t need, but sometimes won’t give a second thought about giving money to a relief fund. But at the same time, Singer says that it is okay to not give money if one is not able to, because one should not risk something of “comparable moral value” (Singer, 232). This makes sense because Singer is talking about how the United Kingdom was giving some money to the Bengal Relief Fund, but a small amount, and instead, donating a lot more to an infrastructure project that wasn’t as important because lives weren’t at risk. According to Singer’s argument, because the infrastructure project wasn’t of comparable moral value, the UK should have contributed more to the Bengal Relief Fund, because they had the means of doing so.

An interesting point that Singer makes in his text is that if everyone gives as much as they should, for instance, in the Bangladesh example, then it would be too much, and that giving more than is needed can also be harmful. Singer writes, “Thus, if everyone does what he ought to do, the result will not be as good as it would be if everyone did a little less than he ought to do, or if only some do all that they ought to do” (Singer, 235). A clarification that one would ask of Singer is, how does one know how much is too much? How is one supposed to communicate with others about what is needed, and how can people distribute that need so that it is fair and there isn’t one person giving too much? There isn’t an outcome that will be perfect where everyone will be able to give just the right amount, because there will always be people that give a lot, some that don’t give any, and some that only give what they can. But Singer says that even if everyone gives only the amount that they can, that still will not be good because there will be excess.

When Singer writes, “One has only to ask this question to see the absurdity of the view that numbers lessen obligation. It is a view that is an ideal excuse for inactivity…” (Singer, 235) one can think about times when there has been a situation where multiple people could possibly help someone in trouble, and for that reason, one will have an excuse to not help the person that needs assistance, because one can always think, “Someone else will take care of it.” Humans will deny themselves of responsibility because they think someone else will do it, and Singer says that this should not be the case. However, Singer then goes on to say in the next paragraph, “there is no reason why I should give more than anyone else in the same circumstances as I am; therefore I have no obligation to give more” (Singer, 235). These two quotations, when put in dialogue with one another, seem contradictory because the second quotation is talking about how someone shouldn’t give more, because others should do the same. This speaks on the “numbers lessen obligation” idea that Singer opposes. It is understandable that one should not give more than they are able to– another idea of Singer’s– because that can cause more suffering, i.e suffering to the individual donating the money, but that means that people will count on others to give just as they are giving, which is inherently the idea that numbers do lessen obligation.

Works Cited

. Accessed September 25, 2025.

Singer, Peter. Famine, Influence, and Morality. Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 1, No. 3 (Spring, 1972). Accessed September 25, 2025.

Honor Code Pledge

“On my honor I have neither

given nor received unauthorized

information regarding this work, I have

followed and will continue to observe

all regulations regarding it, and I am

unaware of any violation of the Honor

Code by others.”

Carolina Calvo