Within the article written by Peter Singer: "Famine, Affluence and Morality"; Peter describes individuals' way of thinking about famine and charity. The article also looks at the ways people can contribute a number of different ways to help the needy. There are not many people who have accepted or acted upon the conclusions that Peter presented in the article. I do believe that Peter's article shows that individuals could do considerably more than they are actually doing these days. These people do not agree with or have not adopted his way of thinking about their own strengths and abilities to help others.
With his theory on these issues earlier philosophers stuck to using logic and their meaning. Philosophers in every field, including ethics, began their arguments with evidence of each event as well as support for the meaning of his or her thoughts toward the issue at hand. This allows for moral arguments and accepted study of concrete public policies. Within the article, Peter states that "people who live in different countries must radically change their way of life and their conception of morality so that they will become committed to helping those whom are in need". Peter begins by asking us to consider a case on famine, such as the one in Bengal in 1971. People were suffering and neither the governments nor individuals did anything close to what would be required to relieve the famine. Peter would create his argument by using the following two principles: First, suffering and death are bad whether from hunger, deficient housing, or inadequate medical care. Second, if one is in a position to prevent a morally bad state of affairs without sacrificing something of roughly equal moral importance one should do so.