Are We All Morally Evil? A Reflection on Peter Singer’s Radical Ethics
Introduction
What if skipping that coffee or movie night made you not just frugal—but moral? What if, according to one philosopher, doing otherwise made you evil?
That’s exactly the challenge Peter Singer poses. In his 1971 paper Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Singer argues that failing to donate our spare income to relieve suffering—like famine—makes us ethically blameworthy. Not just stingy. But wrong. Possibly evil.
This post is not just a summary of Singer’s ideas, but a personal attempt to sit with the discomfort they provoke. Because once you’ve read his argument, it’s difficult to unhear it.
Who Is Peter Singer?
Peter Singer is an Australian moral philosopher, best known for his work in practical ethics. Rooted in utilitarianism, his views emphasize minimizing suffering and maximizing well-being—not just for humans, but for all sentient beings.
In Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Singer applies this framework to global poverty and hunger. His conclusion? If we can prevent suffering without sacrificing something of comparable moral worth, we are morally obligated to do so.
The Drowning Child Analogy
Singer uses a famous analogy to explain his argument. Imagine you walk past a shallow pond and see a child drowning. Would you jump in to save them, even if it meant ruining your expensive shoes?
Most of us would say yes—of course. The child’s life clearly outweighs the cost of the shoes.
But then Singer makes a startling move: he says that if we accept this logic, we must also accept that failing to donate to famine relief is like letting that child drown—just because they are far away doesn’t make their suffering less real or less our concern.
Obligation vs Supererogation
Singer distinguishes between two types of moral actions:
- Obligatory: Actions we must do (like saving a drowning child).
- Supererogatory: Praiseworthy actions that go beyond duty (like donating to charity in most common views).
But for Singer, charity is not supererogatory. It’s a duty. Choosing not to help when we easily can is not neutral—it’s wrong.
The Strong and Weak Versions
Singer presents two versions of his principle:
- Strong version: We must give until we reach the point of marginal utility—until giving more would cause us as much suffering as we prevent.
- Weak version: We must give as long as we do not sacrifice anything morally significant.
Either way, the conclusion is powerful: luxury in the face of suffering is immoral.
Real-Life Implications (and Discomfort)
Singer’s ideas are compelling—but deeply uncomfortable. I think about my daily spending habits: an iced coffee, a new book, a cab ride. According to Singer, those funds could have saved lives.
And he’s not wrong. That’s what makes the argument so haunting. It’s logically consistent, emotionally unsettling, and practically radical.
Objections and Singer’s Replies
Some common objections Singer responds to:
“It’s too demanding!”
Yes, it is. But Singer says that discomfort with the conclusion doesn’t make the argument false.“What about governments and others who should be helping?”
True, but the fact that others fail to act doesn’t absolve us of our personal responsibilities.“It won’t solve the whole problem.”
Perhaps not. But saving one life still matters. Just as pulling one child out of a pond does.
Final Thoughts
Singer’s argument challenges the moral comfort zone of affluent individuals in capitalist societies. It asks: How much of what we do is really ethical when others are suffering unnecessarily?
To be honest, I don’t know if I can live by Singer’s radical standard. But I do know that reading his work shifted something in me. It reframed charity—not as generosity, but as responsibility.
Maybe that’s the first step: to stop seeing donations as a favor, and start seeing them as our moral due.
“If it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, it is wrong not to do so.”
—Peter Singer