In the late 1960s and 1970s, the South Asian region of East Bengal (then East Pakistan, now the country of Bangladesh) was suffering severe famine, due to poverty, civil war and frequent cyclones. The lack of foreign aid to this impoverished region is probably what prompted Peter Singer to write the article Famine, Affluence and Morality, in which he argues that world hunger and starvation can be avoided and perhaps eradicated if everyone in rich countries did their part to help. financially to patients. Singer further argues that duty and charity should not be as distinct as they currently are, and suggests uniting the two. After careful analysis of Singer's article, one can find multiple flaws in this proposition, and conclude that Singer's idea, although conceived with good intentions, is neither feasible nor correct. But first, it is essential to understand Singer's argument. He begins his article by talking about the situation in East Bengal and the lack of foreign aid to help alleviate the suffering of the famine victims. He then broadens the scope of his article to talk about the suffering of people on a global scale. Singer's argument is based on the fact that people starving, suffering, and dying is something bad, and that the prevention of all suffering is something we must do, provided we do not give up something. something of “comparable moral significance” (Singer 24). He also gives a weak version of this theory, according to which we should avoid suffering as long as we do not “sacrifice anything morally significant” (Singer 24). However, he later adds that he personally favors the first, strongest principle. Singer's principle does not take into account...... middle of paper ...... charity and duty, it would still be a moral duty to make a donation, and not respecting it would not lead us to prison, but we would feel immoral. The happiness associated with charity would be lost, and with it, the motivation to donate. The article does not claim that there would be no acts of charity, but it suggests making many acts of charity obligations. This idea of ​​making donations something people should do is the main flaw in Singer's argument. This may sound lofty on paper and has lofty aspirations, but Singer still has multiple concerns to resolve. Yes, there is an understandable need to dramatically increase the amount of foreign aid, but making it a moral obligation for people may not be the best solution. Works Cited Peter Singer, Famine, Affluence, and Morality (Princeton University Press, 1972)