Greatness, Impact, and Peter Singer's "Famine, Affluence, and Morality"

Are great people always good? For some people, there is a necessary connection between the two. In order to achieve great things, one must be a good human being in the first place. Good intentions catalyze greatness. It is by no means a faulty statement. Unless we recategorize the meaning of greatness. 

If one were to rewrite greatness purely on behaviors of impact. Greatness now isn’t just for good-intentioned people. If for the confinement of this article, we move forward with the healthy assumption that the proportion of greatness is correlated with the proportion of impact. You have a more realistic, practical notion of the world itself. 

If this is the assumption that we believe to be true. The greatness of Nelson Mandela isn’t that different from the greatness of Adolf Hitler. Purely, in terms of Impact. The freedom of a country is the same as the mass genocide of an entire race. Any rational person will immediately see the flaw in my statement. Greatness is Impact, not Brutality. 

Greatness can’t be defined on the basis of intentions. If we assume its impact, being aware of the difference between impact and brutality is imperative. The conclusion that can be drawn is greatness must be good-intentioned and have positive consequences impact. Good-intentioned because bad intentions can lead to accidental positive consequences. We now have come to a logical, working definition of greatness. Greatness is Impact, not Brutality. If you were to make an argument as to how brutality had positive outcomes, you’re making a case for Aftershocks, because impact exists in the now, not later. Greatness is not simply about achieving a significant impact on the world; it is also about the way in which that impact is achieved. Greatness is not about brutality, oppression, or violence; it is about freedom, justice, and equality. The question has been answered. Great people must be good in order to do the things they have done. 

Let’s flip the question around now. 

Are good people great? Greatness is reserved for a select few. We’ve all grown up to believe that we can do more than what is possible, but the truth is, not all of us can. not all of us should. So how does the average man become great? In order words, how does the average man create impact? 

Peter Singer’s famous paper on moral obligations - “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” answers our questions. The argument is that affluent people have a moral obligation to donate resources far more than what is considered normal. Even if it kills some of your comforts, but the resources can aid someone else, it is your moral duty to do so. If you have the ability to alleviate suffering around the world, you must do so. Death from a lack of food, medicine, and shelter is terrible but preventable, and steps should be taken to avoid it as much as possible.

The essay points out that if society as a whole doesn’t partake in its moral obligations, the individual can hide in its shadow. Irrespective of self or the collective, one must donate/do whatever he can how much ever he can for the greater good. That is greatness. Participation at the smaller levels creates higher strides of impact. 

let me know what you think.