Analysis Of Singer 's Main Argument

Singer illustrates how when a person is in need or lacking, we should give them a lending hand until they are on their feet. Peter Singer writes about how if one can use their fortune to reduce the suffering of others, without hurting or diminishing the wellbeing of themselves or others, it would be immoral not to do so. The key here would be without diminishing themselves or the wellbeing of others. He states that this duty is equivalent to the saving of a drowning child. He explains how if someone were to see a child drowning in a pond it would be morally wrong to not help the child,

Singer provides counter-arguments in his work which I will talk about thoroughly. He offers his readers with a scenario which involves a drowning kid and a witness. Most people would try to save the kid since it's the “right” action to take. Singer proposes that this duty happens since lots of people know that a drowning kid is definitely a very bad thing and that we should do everything and anything in our power to prevent it from happening. But, the counter-argument in this situation proposes that because I am not the only individual seeing this event, why is it my duty to do something positive about it? Why must it be my ethical responsibility to assist this kid in case nobody else is doing anything regarding it? Singer, P. (1972) describes, “In case it's in our power to avoid something bad from occurring, without thereby compromising anything of comparable moral significance, we should, morally, to do it” (pg. 231). He thinks that we are able to do what's right however we should decide to do what's right even when everybody else decides not to.

The argument for animal rights is an ever growing debate in modern society, with increasing amounts of people taking measures to protect the rights of all animals. This push for animal rights is a relatively new development, with Peter Singer acting as one of the lead advocates for this movement. Singer was one of the first philosophers to argue strongly for the equality amongst all creatures. His highly important article, “All Animals are Equal,” was published in 1974 sparking conversation over this issue. Singer is a believer in Utilitarianism, a moral code which was greatly influenced by the nineteenth century philosopher, John Stuart Mill. While Singer’s viewpoint follows much of Mill’s brand of utilitarianism, I will identify an important difference in each philosopher’s beliefs regarding “happiness” and how this leads to different application of the Greatest Happiness Principle.

Utilitarianism is a moral theory according to which an action is right if and only if it conforms to the principle of utility. An action conforms to the principle of utility if and only if its performance will be more productive of pleasure or happiness, or more preventive of pain and happiness, than any alternative. The rightness of an action entirely depends on the value of its consequences, this is why the theory is described as consequentialist. The “separateness of persons” is an objection against utilitarianism stating that the theory fails to recognize people as distinct individuals. It rejects the allowance of one person’s loss to be offset by another person’s gain, and it is only the net sum total that ultimately matters. Recognition of the “separateness of persons” is needed to put constraints on such trade offs. In this essay I will lay out the theory of utilitarianism and explain the “separateness of persons” objection presented by John Rawls and Robert Nozick. Ultimately I do think they present a successful argument, since utilitarianism is detached from individuals it can lead to grotesquely immoral consequences when put into practice.

From the streets of New York, to the mud homes in South Africa, poverty is a problem the world has been facing since the beginning. We see people pushing buggies full of items from their past lives, or we see children on the television struggling to survive due to the lack of food or clean water in their country. Yet, only a handful of us actually defend these children in a world that heavily depends on the idea that people should take care of themselves, rather than worrying about others. The world of poverty can be treated instead of neglected if we set aside that selfish-capitalistic mindset and use our time and money for our useless wants, to fulfil someone else’s specific needs so that the future generations of children don’t have to suffer in horrible living conditions. Singer, the author of this essay, prevails the idea of ethos, pathos, and logos during each explanation as well as showing his readers the idea that we as humans should do the greater good and live up to our ethical moral obligations in the society that we live in.

In this article, Singer argues that prosperous people should give all money not used on necessities to charity. This bold argument will either persuade or disinterest someone fully. There are many pros and cons of Singer’s argument.

Many individuals suffer daily from famine, to destructible natural disasters. While millions live in poverty around the world. In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” by Peter Singer, he emphasizes on utilitarianism for being his main moral theory he accepts. However he doesn’t directly state it in his own writing. According to utilitarianism, they believe that the purpose of morality is to make life better by increasing the amount of good things in the world and reducing the bad things such as unhappiness and pain. This is relevant to Singer since he states, “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.” Meaning a person has an obligation to do whatever it takes to prevent any bad from happening.

Hook. Both John Stuart Mill and Peter Singer approach moral philosophy from a utilitarian perspective. In this paper, I will argue that Singer’s and Mill’s utilitarian philosophies share numerous similarities but also differ. Singer and Mill agree on the importance of selflessness, the idea that we can end human suffering, and the significance of consequences. However, their views conflict concerning the relevance of motivation. I contend that Singer improves upon Mill’s utilitarianism since Singer accurately recognizes the discrepancy between a life of absolute affluence and absolute poverty and also wrestles with the intricate concept of motive.

This statement is underlining support to Singer’s main claim. He continues by saying, “If you still think that it was very wrong of Bob not to throw the switch that would have…saved the child’s life, then it is hard to see how you could deny that it is also very wrong not to send money…” By adding this statement, Singer is inviting readers to deeply contemplate moral duties. Singer demonstrates an appeal to ethos by introducing himself as a utilitarian philosopher. He starts by defining his label.

Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same

Sheehy, Paul. "Doing the Right Thing (Part II): Challenges to Utilitarianism." The Richmond Journal of Philosophy. Richmond Journal, Mar. 2008.

How do we apply aged philosophies to present day problems? Like his forefather John Stuart Mill, modern thinker Peter Singer approaches moral philosophy from a utilitarian perspective. In this paper, I will argue that Singer’s and Mill’s utilitarian philosophies share numerous similarities but also differ. Singer and Mill agree that selflessness can end human suffering. In addition, their views concerning the significance of consequences align; however, they conflict on the relevance of motivation. I contend that Singer improves upon Mill’s utilitarianism by accurately recognizing the discrepancy between absolute affluence and absolute poverty and also by considering the intricate concept of motive.

In his second premise, Peter Singer asserts that “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally,

Singer proposes that “nearly as important” is a vague statement. It connotes that a person cannot say, for example, saving one’s child is more important than saving the lives of multiple children in another country, as a hardened fact. It is perceptibly more important for someone to save his or her child, while to a third party observer more lives saved is morally more important. Therefore, “nearly as important” allows some wiggle room in order to allow people to be honest with themselves about right and wrong. Essentially, Singer says that if an individual has the ability to give, there is no substantial reason not to do so. It is not a question of whether or not to give, but how much.

Utilitarianism, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, states that the morality of an action should be judged based on the extent to which it produces happiness, or the opposite of happiness—an action is good as long as the result is happiness, and deemed bad if it results in pain. A clearer understanding of what Utilitarianism is can be gained by John Stuart Mill’s characterization of what it is not. He states, “I believe that the very imperfect notion ordinarily formed of its meaning, is the chief obstacle which impedes its reception; and that could it be cleared, even from only the grosser misconceptions, the question would be greatly simplified, and a large proportion of its difficulties removed” (Mill, 2007, p. 4). In defining Utilitarianism, Mill dispels common misconceptions that are held about Utilitarianism in order to give the reader a clearer understanding of the doctrine and the rationales that support it.