How does philosopher John Arthur, in his article "Famine Relief and the Ideal Moral Code," disagree with the reform that Peter Singer proposes?
In his article "Famine Relief and the Ideal Moral Code," philosopher John Arthur disagrees with Peter Singer's argument that money spent on anything beyond what is needed to live a simple life can and should be redirected to providing famine relief. Opposing this, Arthur claims that those who earn money have the right to spend it as they wish and that the possibility of earning the fruit of their labor promotes industry and productivity.
Peter Singer argues that we ought to give whatever we can to prevent or alleviate bad situations, so long as we do not sacrifice "anything of comparable importance." In the case of famine relief, where people's lives are at stake, almost none of the things on which we spend our money can be of comparable importance. Everything we spend on frivolities and luxuries such as new clothes and shoes, restaurant meals, and alcoholic drinks...
(The entire section contains 226 words.)
check Approved by eNotes Editorial