Ursinus Intro Ethics Blog - Section A

I agree with the conclusion that Singer has drawn that those not suffering from lack of food, shelter, or medical care should help to prevent poverty. For example if there was prior knowledge that a hurricane was coming, it would only make sense to take precautions which would prevent the most damage from occurring. Furthermore, if we have the means to save someone from starvation by sacrificing a small portion of our income, it would only make sense to do so. This is an agreeable argument as well as an attack on the morality of those who do not acknowledge or participate in trying to better the lives of people living in squalor. It can be inferred that morality is the concept of good and bad in which not sacrificing something would lead to having bad morals. Those who choose to ignore the facts about poverty or find fault with donating to charity, have made a choice to lead a life in which is focused on themselves and not the good of man kind. It does not matter who you are, where you are from or how much money you have, there is always something you can give. This view which I present does not mean that one should focus on the needs of others before his or her own family, but rather to give up a small luxury in return for possibly saving a life. However, it is in my experience that people are more inclined to place blame on other factors, rather then taking the responsibility to lend a hand. It is human nature to make up an excuse rather then initiate change. Change therefore is the motivating factor that drives humans to make a difference; whether it is as simple as donating old clothes or sending money to a forgotten child in East Bengal dying of starvation.