Famine, Affluence, and Virtue

Introduction

Michael Slote’s article, Famine, Affluence, and Virtue, looks at Peter Singer’s arguments

and views that focus on one’s moral obligation to relieve disease or hunger in various regions

across the globe. In his article, considers counterarguments from other philosophers, such as

Hutcheson, Hume, and Peter Unger, as he strives to assess the credibility of Singer’s argument.

This paper evaluates Slote’s opinion on Singer’s views and arguments, and potential problems to

his position. I agree with Slote’s argument, that perceiving, or seeing, has a significant influence

when it comes to eliciting or arousing altruistic and empathetic reactions, and I will argue why

Slote presents a stronger argument compared to Singer and Unger, who present an opposing

argument.

Part I: The Author’s Argument

Slote (2001, p.279) starts by acknowledging that Peter Singer’s arguments and views that

were stated in his classic paper, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, can be considered one of the

greatest challenges to recent moral theory as well as ordinary moral thinking. Philosophers have,

on several occasions, strived to refute Singer’s argument that states each individual has a moral

obligation to eradicate disease or hunger in other parts of the world. According to Singer, this

obligation can be likened to our obligation to rescue a child drowning in a shallow pool of water.

In his paper, Slote (2001, p.279) argues that the sentimentalist form of virtue ethics can

address Singer’s views and arguments in a way that neo-Aristotelianism and Aristotelianism

cannot do. Slote (2001, p.279) then considers Hutcheson’s and Hume’s theories of morality.

Both arguments are recognizably virtual-ethical and specifically assess actions through referring