With Singer’s second assumption, it could seem at first that it attempts to make the reader feel guilty. But if we choose to look closer, we can see its “flaws.” Singer gives us two suggestions that make his assumption even more complex to deal with; he gives us the flaws. His first argument says, “The principle takes no account of proximity or distance” (231). He is trying to imply that an excuse claiming that the sufferers are too far away to be able to help is an unacceptable excuse. Our world has become so much more technologically advanced in so many different ways, it has made possible to communication with the other side of the planet. Singer refers to it as a “global village,” it then reminds me how connected we can be to other areas of the world, therefore making me question why people can’t use that “global village” to help others out. Why do so many people leave new technology unrecognized, ignoring the chance to save someone? I often find myself getting caught up
In a piece by Peter Singer entitled, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Singer argues that Americans should prevent atrocious situations to arise but, we also should not sacrifice something of equal importance while doing so. Moreover, in the piece by John Arthur, “World Hunger and Moral Obligation: The Case Against Singer,” Arthur disagrees with Singer; he believes that we should help the poverty-stricken but, it is not morally imperative to do so.
Singer presents his argument specifically in I ought to prevent the bad because the mere presence of others does not lessen my duty. The inactions of others have no bearing on what I must do. And, every person in this case has an equal obligation to save the child’s life.
Peter Singer defends that we “ought to prevent evil whenever we can do so without sacrificing something of comparable moral significance (Famine Relief and the Ideal Moral Code pg. 813)”. He believes that we should donate at least half of our earnings to people in absolute poverty, which in this case means poverty by any standard. He also says we should help out people in other countries before we help out our own neighbor. “The fact that a person is physically near to us, so that we have
For example, one of the arguments he poses, for disregarding distance as a barrier to moral action, is that “expert observers and supervisors, sent out by famine relief organizations or permanently stationed in famine-prone areas,” can effectively direct our aid. Because of their proximity, these experts have intimate knowledge of the situation and are more adept at determining where funds need to be allocated than us, thousands of miles away. Additionally, Singer states that, “it is possible that we are in a better position to judge what needs to be done to help a person near to us than one far away,” which once again supports the idea that proximity matters since it provides the opportunity to better judge and react to a given situation. Unfortunately, there are times where obtaining all the fact is impossible. Perhaps we lack the skills to obtain the information, or there is simply not enough time. In these situations, we have no choice but to use our past experiences and better judgement to decide whether moral action should be taken. Furthermore, it is imperative that, in the situations where all the variables are not known, we are prepared to accept the consequences our actions may
Singer’s Ethical Argument Peter Singer, a prominent moral philosopher and public intellectual, has written at length about many ethical issues. He subscribes to utilitarianism, which is the position that the best moral action is that which maximizes the well-being of conscious entities; this view is made apparent through his writings. In his essay What Should a Billionaire Give—and What Should You? Singer presents the idea that although the rich are capable of mitigating extreme poverty, there has been little improvement for the poorest 10 percent of the world’s population. He maintains that all life is equal and, therefore, saving the lives of the poor is a moral imperative for those who can afford to. “We are far from acting in accordance to that belief,”
Singer’s main argument is built upon the “assumption that suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad” (231). It is the duty of the utilitarian to attempt to relieve this type of suffering. His standpoint is that people should attempt to prevent bad
Peter Singer said; “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” (Famine, Affluence, and Morality). As human beings, we have a moral compulsion to help other people, despite the verity that they may be strangers, especially when whatever type of aid we may render can in no approach have a more significant consequence on our own life.
Singer demonstrates an appeal to ethos by introducing himself as a utilitarian philosopher. He starts by defining his label. Singer defines a utilitarian philosopher as, “one who judges whether acts are right or wrong based by their consequences.” By doing this, Singer aids to his credibility. By setting a firm understanding of his title and position, Singer also makes his intentions behind his argument
Singer’s arguments rest on the simple assumption that suffering, from lack of basic resources, is bad. Accordingly, his argument is that the way people in prosperous countries respond to situations like that in Bengal is not morally justified. His argument is that if we have the power to prevent bad situations from occurring, “without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance,” (Singer, 231) then we have a moral obligation to do so. In order to get people to give the appropriate amount of money Singer insinuates that the social distinction between duty and charity must be reconsidered. Moreover, charity should no longer be seen as a supererogatory act, or rather an act that is socially perceived as virtuous but has no social consequences if ignored. Thus, his
Peter Singer is often regarded as one of the most productive and influential philosophers of modern times. He is well-known for his discussions of the acute social, economic, and political issues, including poverty and famines. In his “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, Singer (1972) discusses the problem of poverty and hunger,
Kant and Deontological Theory Immanuel Kant was a moral philosopher. His theory, better known as deontological theory, holds that intent, reason, rationality, and good will are motivating factors in the ethical decision making process. The purpose of this paper is to describe and explain major elements of his theory, its essential
Utilitarianism 2.0 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.
Nowadays, the process of globalization strengthens the connections between numerous countries across the world, and enables people living in developed countries to help those who are experiencing famine, deaths and diseases in poor countries. However, the moral necessity of doing so has been controversial in human’s society for years. One philosopher named Peter Singer gives his opinion in the article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, and presents a powerful argument supporting his claim. In this essay, I will explain his conclusion and main argument, propose one objection to his argument, and evaluate the validity of my objection by considering possible response that Peter Singer would make to my objection.
Kant’s choice of exemplification scenarios further asserts that no action that is done from inclination have any moral worth and that only the actions from duty have moral worth. According to Kant, a good or right course of action is not necessarily that which is inscribed in the society’s code of ethical reference but it is that which one undertakes since they feel it is their duty or obligation to perform it (Stratton-Lake, 322). Doing the right thing does nothave limitations or a comparison index but is rather based on one's rationale and free will. The duty to do the right thing manifests itself as an internal urge towards fulfilling a certain quest. That quest is makes one have the free will to perform or not perform a certain deed without regarding the consequences that would have on their life and society. Fossee notes that Kant’s argument is therefore shaped in a way that any conflict between duties is nullified or not considered in the analyses (3). That is made possible from Kant’s earlier classification of needs into perfect and imperfect needs. The superiority of the perfect needs means that the rationale of a person is guided to ensure that categorical imperatives take precedence and acts as a determinate factor for the morality of an action.