Question

The conclusion of Peter Singer's Famine, Affluence and Morality is that donating to charity is morally obligatory, not supererogatory. When applying this idea to earning money with the intention to donate, the question arises: Is it morally obligatory to earn as much money as possible, and is not going out of your way to earn more considered an evil act? Singer's analogy of saving a drowning child implies that the moral obligation persists even if personal sacrifice is involved, whether it be a small cut, severe illness, or loss of limbs. However, there is ambiguity regarding whether one is morally obliged to give their own life to save another. The question remains open-ended, raising ethical considerations about the extent of personal sacrifice required for moral obligations, especially in the pursuit of earning more money for charitable acts. In Peter Singer's ethical framework, what is the stance on earning money for charitable purposes?

A) Earning more money is morally obligatory, regardless of personal sacrifice.
B) Earning more money is a morally commendable but supererogatory act.
C) Earning more money is morally neutral and depends on individual preferences.
D) Earning more money is morally wrong, as it distracts from immediate charitable actions.

Answer 1

According to Peter Singer's ethical framework, it is morally commendable to earn and donate money to charity, but it is not obligatory to maximize wealth at all costs for charitable donations. Personal choice and freedom in making economic decisions, while balanced with a moral duty to help others less fortunate, are key components of Singer's view. B) Earning more money is a morally commendable but supererogatory act.

Step-by-step explanation:

The ethical framework developed by Peter Singer, specifically in relation to earning money for charitable purposes, would likely support the notion that actively earning and donating significant amounts of money to help those in dire need is a moral obligation to a certain extent. However, Singer's approach, rooted in utilitarianism, does not explicitly mandate that one should earn as much money as possible at all costs, nor does it suggest that failing to maximize earnings for charity is an evil act. What Singer emphasizes is that we should not live opulently while others are in extreme poverty and that we should give more than what is often considered the norm in affluent societies.

Considering Singer's views on moral behavior and personal choice, it might be said that while it is good and even expected to donate to charity and help those less fortunate, one also has to consider their own life plans and personal well-being. Earning more money is encouraged as a means of increasing one's ability to aid others, but it is likely not seen as obligatory to pursue wealth to the absolute detriment of one's own life and happiness. Therefore, the conclusion would be closer to B) Earning more money is a morally commendable but supererogatory act.