Peter Singer Analysis

1.) Tone is the author's attitude toward the subject he or she is writing about. Tone has to do with how something is being said, rather than what is being said. How would you describe Singer's TONE in the essay? How does his choice of language help achieve his tone?

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.

A Life or Death Situation, by Robin Marantz Henig, New York Times, July, 2013, is a review of the debate surrounding the right to a dignified death. It examines the purely philosophical view of the issue; as well as the heart wrenching reality of being faced with that question in one 's personal life. Does a person have a right to choose how he or she dies? How does that choice impact the people who care about about him or her? Should a person who cares about someone be required to cause or aide in his or her death? These questions weigh heavy on the minds of many people, who live

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 things from happening: “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” (231). Singer contends that this is largely an uncontroversial principle since it only requires that people do not make undue sacrifices in order to promote the greater good. The example he gives to demonstrate his point is that of walking past a shallow pond and seeing a child drowning. To save the child, all that is required is for a person to get a little muddy or damp. For an immaterial sacrifice, something very bad is being prevented and therefore there should be no debate about a person’s actions.

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.

The overall effectiveness of the argument is that Hitchens thinks that the death penalty should be abolished completely. Although this essay was written in 2001, the death penalty is still as controversial now as it was then. People think that it should be stopped because it is wrong to take someone’s life for a punishment, while others think that it should not be stopped simply because it is not fair to the people that are affected. Throughout Hitchens essay, he uses ethos to convince the reader that a death with choosing is wrong, he uses logos as simple logic to prove his point, and pathos to persuade his reader by enhancing a sympathetic emotion to gain support. Hitchens ends his essay with a quote from Edna St. Vincent Millay from her poem Conscientious Objector, “I shall die, but that is all I shall do for death” (104). This means that death shall not be feared, but welcomed with open arms, however individuals should not encourage death upon anyone or help it out in any

the issue of poverty by suggesting Americans give away most of their income to aid those in need. Singer believes that withholding income is the equivalence of letting a child starve to death. Therefore, Singer suggests the ethical thing to do to end world hunger is to give up everyday luxuries. Although donating a vast amount of money could help dying and starving children, Singer’s proposition is not only unrealistic but also too demanding for everyday Americans who have responsibilities of their own.

Ethicist Peter singer is an influential member of pro euthanasia advocates. Singer justifies his pro euthanasia credentials based on two grounds the first being voluntary, which means the patient, has the capacity to choose between life and death and can make a rational decision to die. The second ground is non-voluntary, where the patient is incapable of understanding the choice between continued existence and non-existence and therefore cannot consent to death. (Singer, 1993) Singer maintains the notion that a person who wishes to die has made an informed decision based on careful exercising of one’s reason and then consents to death in the form of voluntary

According to the United Nations, a child dies of hunger every ten seconds. Likewise, millions of people worldwide live in poverty and do not know when they will eat again. While the typical American throws away leftover food, children are dying across the world from starvation. To put this into perspective: By the time you have started reading, a child has died of hunger. Bioethicist and utilitarian philosopher, Peter Singer, in his argumentative essay, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” asserts that it is the individual's responsibility to save children in poverty. Singer utilizes many rhetorical strategies-- including appealing to pathos, repetition, and comparison of statistics-- to defend his argument: “Whatever money you’re spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away.” He adopts an analytical and indignant tone in order to convince Americans to donate money to save the lives of millions of children.

With time violence may become such a commonplace that even seemingly sane people will see no problem murdering a store clerk, opening fire on someone that cut them off on the highway, or killing a disobedient child. "A society that chooses violent death as a solution to a social problem gives official sanction to a climate of violence." (Prejean, 57)

A controversial human rights issue in modern society is the right to die, an issue that has much to do with the way that human beings relate to society at large, the notion that a man has ownership of their own body, and the obligations set forth in the Hippocratic oath and medical ethics. Physician assisted suicide, or the right to die as those in the pro-assisted suicide movement call it, divides two very different kinds of people into two camps. One’s opinion on the subject is entirely related to one’s core values. Whether one values the individual or whether one places more emphasis on the will of the majority has a great impact on one’s beliefs concerning the issue of the right to die. In this essay, I will prove

The premises of Peter Singer’s paper is, “when killing is, and is not, wrong.” He is stating the circumstances under which

Would it be true that capital punishment saves lives? Edward Koch, in his article “Death and Justice” believes it does. Koch, using common techniques to influence his audience, suggests that killers should be handled within this tried and avenged form of punishment. Koch opens his article by quoting convicted murderers Robert Lee Willie and Joseph Carl Shaw, both in the last moments of their lives pleading for the justice system to put a stop to the endless cycle of killing. Using simple logic, Koch argues that the sudden changing of the killers’ moral character is not a result of remorse for the victims, but rather an attempt to save their own lives from the killing hands of the justice system. Koch effectively uses these quotes to suggest to the reader that a killer might have thought twice about his/her own actions if the death sentence were a belief.

A win is a win no matter what. However, it is how it is achieved that makes the difference. When it comes to sports, it is either hard working, making use of a special talent or a brilliant tactic that can win you a game, but is it really ethical for a win to be achieved with the aid of steroids? The article “Is Doping Wrong?” published in August 2007 by the Australian professor in ethics and the current Ira W. DeCamp of Bioethics at Princeton University, Peter Singer, discusses the debatable aspect of whether the use of drugs by professional athletes should be permitted or not. Despite his illogical arguments and fallacies at some points, Singer was able to portray his ideas in a coherent and organized way. Therefore, I would recommend this article to the Writing 101 students, as it would teach them how to display their ideas in a well-organized and consistent manner, in addition to learning how to avoid the use of some specific fallacies.

In view of these safeguards, proponents of capital punishment believe that state executions are justified sentences for those convicted of willful first-degree murder. They do not think sentencing murderers to prison is a harsh enough sentence, especially if there is the possibility of parole for the perpetrator. A final argument posed by proponents of the death penalty is that execution is an effective deterrence. They are convinced that potential murderers will likely think twice before they commit murder. Despite the rhetoric of politicians for the increased use of the death penalty, a number of prominent individuals and organizations have emerged to express their opposition to capital punishment. Along with families of death row prisoners, the International Court of The Hague, the United Nations, Amnesty International, the Texas Conference of Churches, Pope John Paul II, Nobel Peace recipient, Bishop Tutu, numerous judges and former prosecutors, former Attorney General, Ramsey Clark, actors, and writers are waging a determined struggle against the death penalty. They invariably argue that capital punishment is wrong and inhumane. Religious folk generally evoke the nature of an “ideal spiritual community” (Cauthen, 1). Within this perspective, a moral and ethical community does not insist on a life for a life. While a community must act to protect law- abiding citizens, an ethical response would be to