Singer is trying to show that the wealthy should do more to help those who are desperately needy, such as those suffering from famine. More generally, he wants to show that we are mistaken in thinking that morality does not typically require us to make significant sacrifices in cases like these. We think that giving to famine relief is a good thing to do but optional. Singer thinks it is mandatory: morality requires us to save others, just as it requires us not to kill others.
He argues for this conclusion by proposing an analogy between the victims of famine and a drowning child who can be rescued at little cost: getting muddy pants.
The strategy goes like this: most of us believe we would be morally obligated to save the child and the two cases are similar in the relevant ways, therefore, we should accept the conclusion that we ought to do more to help people suffering from famine.
Where is East Bengal and what happened in 1971?
Answer: it’s called Bangladesh now. Here’s the history of the conflict Singer was writing about.
Aren’t his facts out of date?
Sadly, no. Famines and the other effects of dire poverty are easy to find. Meanwhile, foreign aid has plummeted following the end of the cold war.
“The 21 rich countries of the OECD gave a record low share of their national income in overseas aid in 1997. Only four countries met the UN target of 0.7% of their GDP.”** The Economist, 6-12 February, 1999
This is unfortunate because we now have some evidence that foreign aid actually works to alleviate poverty and other sources of human misery.†† Gregg Easterbrook, “Safe Deposit: the case for foreign aid,” The New Republic July 29, 2002.
And the Concorde has been cancelled. It was a commercial failure.