Sudan Famine

In a piece by Peter Singer entitled, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Singer argues that Americans should prevent atrocious situations to arise but, we also should not sacrifice something of equal importance while doing so. Moreover, in the piece by John Arthur, “World Hunger and Moral Obligation: The Case Against Singer,” Arthur disagrees with Singer; he believes that we should help the poverty-stricken but, it is not morally imperative to do so.

Peter Singer, the author of “The Singer Solution to world poverty”, who introduces himself as a utilitarian philosopher. In Singer’s mind, a utilitarian philosopher means “one who judges whether acts are right or wrong based by their consequences.” Peter Singer published this article on New York Times magazine on September 5, 1999. In this essay, he demonstrate that his solution to world poverty is encouraging Americans to donate their money which is not necessary. There is no doubt that the people who have ability to donate for the poor children are the audiences of his essay.

In Peter Singer’s article, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, he proposes the question: “What are the moral implications of a situation like the one in Bengal (230)?” In order to answer this question Singer presents at least two arguments which involve what one ought to do and the moral consequences of not acting or pursuing our moral obligations. His first and central conclusion is that we “ought” to behave in such a way as to decrease suffering and death as a result of lack of food, shelter and medical care. Assuming that the aforementioned events are “bad” Peter singer argues that we are morally obligated to help “relieve great suffering of the sort that occurs as a result of famine or other disasters” as long as “we can without sacrificing something else of comparable moral importance” (238). In fact, he goes so far as to present an additional conclusion that not acting or pursuing our moral obligation to help is unjustifiable and wrong and we must then change our moral schema about the obligations we have to others.

The writer behind “Singers Solution to World Poverty” advocates that U.S. citizens give away the majority of their dispensable income in order to end global suffering. Peter Singer makes numerous assumptions within his proposal about world poverty, and they are founded on the principle that Americans spend too much money on items and services that they do not need.

At any given moment, there are people around the world suffering and dying due to severe poverty. According to Peter Singer, there is much more that we can do to help create a better life for these people. He makes the obvious statement, in which most people agree with, that suffering and death due to poverty are very bad. His second idea is that if we are able to prevent that from happening without sacrificing too much for ourselves, we should. Essentially, we should prevent a bad thing from happening if it is in our power to do so without causing harm to ourselves in any way. An example of this that Singer points out is, “if I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought to wade in and pull the child out. This will mean getting my clothes muddy, but this is insignificant, while

Moral obligations are not based on one single platform since they differ within every community. Every community has their own necessities and what may seem to be a moral obligation to one may not be to another. Despite the differences, every individual has the power to make a positive transformation in and outside of their geographical location. As indicated by the philosopher Peter Singer, every individual has a set of moral obligations to live by in respect to famine. Famine is the topic discussed by Singer to bring upon his argument and mention that starvation and poverty are substandard. Singer contends that if we have the power to prevent menacing situations from happening, henceforth being a famine, without risking anything, our moral

In Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, he describes how he believes everyone’s approach to global poverty should be. He starts by describing how people in many places in the world are dying from hunger, having no shelter or access to medical care. Other people have the ability to stop this from happening if they make the right decisions. He compares Britain’s use of money, using three times more for certain projects than they’ve used to give to the needy, which he says shows they care more about these projects than those lives. He then says that he’s going to argue why this is wrong, and how affluent countries should be using their money and why. First he says that dying from starvation or lack of food is bad, a premise we should all accept for one reason or another. His next point is that if we have the power to prevent something bad without sacrificing something of equal or greater value, then we have the moral obligation to do it. He compares this to a child drowning in a pond, you have the obligation to go and pull the child out of the pond and help them, your clothes will get wet and dirty, but this is insignificant compared to the child’s death. He then

In his article, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Peter Singer gives a solution to help poor people around the world especially children. One important idea from his article is that people need to donate by all their extra money. He says: “The formula is simple: whatever money you’re spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away.” It is true that feeling for other’s suffering is important. However, Singer’s argument is not realistic.

Sudan is a country with multitudes of problems. I will address just a portion of the many problems this country face but must first began with a very brief background.

Although the background of Sudan’s modern timeline begins in 1881 when she was conquered by Turkey and Egypt, the modern famines starts in 1958 when a military coup replaced the civilian government. South Sudan was still part of the larger nation of Sudan as she gained independence in 1956, but the corrupt leaders that manifested from the greed and power created a kleptocratic, winner-take-all state. (2) Civil war commenced as early as 1962 creating a mosaic of military dictatorships instead of one of stable governance. Between 1964, when the new national government was formed, until the 1990’s where another military coup by Al-Bashir’s Islamic Front (NIC), instability was the catalyst for famine. (CITE) Tribal division lends to fighting between all different factions;

The civil war which eventually lead to the independence of South Sudan is also one of the most prominent causes of famine in the hunger-struck nation. Prior to this event was the First Sudanese Civil War, in which Northern Sudan fought Southern Sudan from 1955 until 1972. Beginning in 1983, the Second Sudanese Civil War lasted all the way until 2005 when the Sudan People’s Liberation Army finally claimed victory. The violence in South Sudan ruined crops throughout the region. Crops such as maize and sorghum are utilized in the majority of Sudanese cooking, and are essential to the nourishment of the people, providing them with food such as porridge, bread, and cereal. However, as a result of the war, these staples have become scarce. In fact, “in 2013, the Unity state's traditional sector produced 26,000 tons of cereal which by 2016 had dropped to 9,000 tons, according to the Food and Agricultural Organization” (Mednick). The drop in production illustrates the hunger crisis; clearly, the production rate of cereal parallels the production rate of these essential grains. This decrease in crop production only adds to the hunger crisis in the region, as the limit on supplies becomes continuously restricted. However, not only did the violence impact food production, but it negatively impacted the economy of the country. According to World Vision International, a humanitarian aid organization, “decades of civil war before South Sudan became a nation…have left it one of the poorest countries in the world,” (Reid). South Sudan, one of the world’s newest nations, has also become one of the weakest economically because of on-going war and violence. In addition to their comment on the impact of the civil war, World Vision International claimed that “famine [has been] declared in parts of Unity state in what the U.N. calls a man-made

Darfur is the only region in the Sudan that does not border the Nile. With the climate changing between the North and South regions and less rain fall between the desert and savanna, the region has become increasingly volatile. Water access in Darfur is important for the survival of the people because the only two occupations in the Darfur area are farming and nomads. Darfur is very dry, but the Darfurians have always been able to survive on their long standing cultural beliefs of shared habitation, all the while extracting an economic surplus even from harsh environmental conditions. But over the last fifty years, this started to change. Factors like population growth in the Darfur region, increasing desertification/diminishing land, climate

For example; the United States itself and other nations such as Somalia and Congo continue to have people with no shelter over their head and those with no food to eat, regardless of how hard some may strive to make ends meet, they are still in poverty. As those more auspicious, we should consider it as a moral obligation to assist those people who are less fortunate, be it those in the same nation as us or those farther away.

After being independent, Republic of South Sudan came into existence amid great challenges and marked a major milestone and fresh opportunity for South Sudanese. Nevertheless, massive state-corroding corruption, political instability within the ruling party, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) and determined tensions with Sudan over the sharing of oil revenues, internal displacement caused by tribal conflict and fighting between government and militias and food security made South Sudan vulnerably returning back the conflict. Moreover, the areas along the border between South Sudan and Sudan were affected by conflict since the former declared independence in 2011, which are Abyei, the Blue Nile region and South Kordofan.

Sudan, like many countries, has a complicated history ridden with war and turmoil. It is positioned in northeastern Africa, and neighbored by Egypt, Ethiopia, and Chad. It was once the largest state in Africa, consisting of a population of approximately of 37 million, according to the World Bank estimate, before it was split into Sudan and South Sudan in July 2011 . The southern region of Sudan was granted autonomy in terms of a Peace Agreement. Before this agreement, the country had previously been through two civil wars primarily due to conflict between the Sudanese government and southern rebels . Southern rebels were displeased with their mistreatment by the government’s hand and took a stand. These constant conflicts have negatively affected and displaced many of the citizens of Sudan.