In his essay, "Famine Affluence, and Morality," Peter Singer makes some

assertions about the moral conceptual scheme of humans in relatively affluent countries. His essay revolves around an argument which states, "if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally to do it." Therefore, Singer states, that we are morally required to help assist people suffering from famine. According to Singer if this principle was actually put in to place the whole world would be affected and essentially transformed.

There are two main implications of this principle. For one, there is no explanation of nearness or distance. In defense of this first implication Singer states, "the fact that a person is physically near to us...may make it more likely that we shall assist him, but this does not show that we ought to help him rather than another who happens to be further away." However, if we, as humans, believe in equality then there is no excuse for refraining from helping someone simply because they are physically far away from us. Singer states that this is because the world has been developed into a place of immediate communication and rapid transportation.

Secondly, according to this principle, it does not matter whether there is only one position. Psychologically there is a difference between the two because a person is likely to justify not doing something by saying that it is someone else's responsibility. Morally, however, mere numbers should not lessen one's responsibility. Singer states "most of the major evils poverty, overpopulation, pollution are problems in which everyone is almost equally involved." So it would make sense that numbers should not matter and that saying someone else is responsible is simply an excuse and not a reason against it.

Singer uses the above argument as reasoning for people and relatively affluent countries to assist in helping those who are suffering from famine. It is important to note that this argument is based "with the assumption that suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care is bad." Mill's theory of Utilitarianism can be similarly used in a comparable argument. Utilitarianism states that an action is to be preferred if it leads to a greater preponderance of happiness over pain of the whole group. Mill states, similarly to Singer, that everyone can agree that pain is bad and pleasure is good. This mirrors Singer's theory of preventing bad things from happening and promoting good whenever possible without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance. Famine is unarguably a bad thing that is not at all pleasurable. It logically follows that helping as much as one can without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, such as what one requires for living, would be required of Utilitarianism. Assisting in a fight against famine would be promoting a greater preponderance of happiness over pain for the whole group. The famine would deplete and one would have the satisfaction that comes from helping someone in need.

One could question why a person would be motivated to help someone in need who is far away. This question can be answered with Mill's explanation of sanctions. Mill states that people are motivated by sanctions. These sanctions can either be external or internal. External sanctions are those outside of one's self. They can be positive, such as receiving praise or rewards from other people or God, or negative, such as receiving disapproval or punishment. Internal sanctions are those instilled in one's own mind that affects a person's behavior, such as a guilty conscience. For Mill, the "Ultimate Sanction" is people's need to be a part of the group. Any of these sanctions can be applied to how and why one should be motivated to assist those suffering from famine. These sanctions could come in forms such as feeling good about yourself, knowing that you are helping people or doing what one thinks God would want. If everyone were to give what they could, it would become the norm and those that deviate from this norm would be looked down upon for not being a part of a group, or doing their part.

This leads into the next point. One objection that is brought against Utilitarianism is that it is godless, inefficient, and impractical for human beings. Mill's reply to that objection proves just the opposite. If it is true that, above all other things, God wants His creatures to be happy and that was in fact the purpose of creation, then utility is a religious doctrine. It is neither insufficient or impractical because as one grows one learns that, for instance, burglary is wrong and it does not benefit the greater good. Furthermore, just as anything else practical, the principle of utility is subject to indefinite improvement with the progressive state of the human mind. This reply can be directly applied to why it is morally right to assist people who are suffering from famine. If it is true that God wants all of His creatures to be happy, that being the point of creation, and it is also true that famine and suffering causes humans to be in a state of pain rather than happiness, then it is also true that assisting those suffering from famine is in accordance with God's wants. One could take that a step further and say that any human being should be required to do such because we are creations of God and should have a responsibility to do as God would want us to. This idea of giving as much as you can without sacrificing something of moral comparison is also not insufficient or impractical. It is not insufficient because if everyone does what they can, many small amounts can add up to one large amount of help. It is not an impractical idea either because when is giving only what they can which means rather that it is practical.

Another point in Mill's Utilitarianism deals with justice and rights. There are certain principles of justice that show the conditions that describe what is worthy of punishment and concerns of our rights. These conditions are: Never deprive life, liberty, or property; Do not violate a person's moral rights; Each person should obtain what he deserves; Do not break promises; Do not take part in unfair favoritism; Follow the principle of equality. These principles of justice unify all of morality because our moral outrage comes from wanting to protect ourselves.

Each principle mentioned can be applied to the argument of assisting people who suffer from famine as long as you do not sacrifice something of equal moral importance. By not assisting, one is, in a sense, depriving life. If one is able to assist, but does not help the problem of famine, that person is letting people continue to starve and thus depriving someone of their life. Every person has certain moral rights and every person should obtain what he or she deserves. There is no moral reasoning for a person to deserve to suffer and starve to death. Therefore, people deserve to not have to be afflicted to and suffer through famine. Thus by not helping one is taking away people's rights not to have to suffer and starve to death. Another principle of justice is do not break promises, or in other words, do not lie. If a person has the money to go to a movie on a Friday night, then they have extra money that is not imperative in their survival that they could use to help assist the famine. Thus if that person were to say they do not have the money to help, that would be a lie. The two last principles of justice state that one should not take part in unfair favoritism and one should follow the principle of equality. This was briefly mentioned earlier in this essay. If one is able to help this famine but they do not because it is too far away or it does not personally affect them they are in direct violation of those last two principles. They would be discriminating against people who live far away and using unfair favoritism towards people that only affect you.

In examining these particular aspects of Mill's Utilitarianism and making comparisons to Singer's essay, it is obvious that Mill would be in agreement with Singer's central claim that, "If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it." This leads to believing that Mill would agree with Singer's strong version of the argument, "which requires us to prevent bad things from happening unless in doing so we would be sacrificing something of comparable moral significance," thus requiring the highest level of assistance possible for people suffering from famine. Mill would do this because it is in accordance with Utilitarianism and would thus be wrong not to do so. Singer's claim, "If it is in one's power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, one ought, morally, to do it," is in direct accordance with Mill's Theory of Utility that says an action is to be preferred if it leads to a greater preponderance of happiness over pain for the whole.