Peter Singer's Ethical Argument

There are many common pregnancy alternatives, but most often the resulting decision is abortion because it is effortless. Abortion is endings a women’s pregnancy by removing or forcing a fetus or embryo from the mother’s womb before it is able to survive on its own. Not all abortions are purposely done some are spontaneous like when a women that has a miscarriage. Rather abortion is done purposely or naturally it is a worldwide complication as to it being wrong or right. Abortion is an ethical issue that will be analyzed according to a personal worldview and Christian worldview. Ethical thinking will be examined by value-based decisions that address abortion from the perspective of a Christian worldview and comparing it to a personal assumption by addressing ethical dilemma, core beliefs, resolution, evaluation, and comparison.

Peter Singer is a well-known philosopher of bioethics and animal rights, the Australian born is often represented as the most influential and controversial speaker (Franklin, 2012). Singer’s contentious theories often differ in the media, some are criticised and some are shaped passively. This paper focuses on a discourse analysis on the article “Singer’s chant for a better, kinder world” by Julie Hare in The Australian. The purpose of such analysis is to understand the meaning of the strategies used to illustrate Peter Singer and his views in the media.

There is a concern among many, that it is not the woman’s decision to terminate the life of their unborn child. Fetuses are advocated for because decision making is out of their control. One of the main arguments is that the unborn child will not have the opportunity to live the life it deserves and because of that, women that go through the process of abortion will regret their decision. This is understandable, because it is a difficult option to pursue, not health-wise, but emotionally a devastation for some. Along

Ethical relativism would be partially against Singer’s philosophy. The argument that nothing is objectively right or wrong and everything that is exposed is just an opinion. After all, nobody owns the “the perfect truth”. And while some of the ethical relativist might be willing to share Peter’s point of view, others will say that Peter is speaking out from his emotions, that he is exaggerating, or the duty to helps others depends on circumstances such as wealth or

When Henry Paulson was quoted in saying “In just about every area of society, there's nothing more important than ethics” he could not have been more right or more insightful (Brainyquotes n.d., retrieved Aug.26.2015). As with Henry Paulson; Peter Singer also helped to challenge the beliefs and ideas of what it means to be ethical in society or in the world at large. Through the dissection of Peter Singers short story Ethics (Taylor, 2009) I will be determining his academic argument, the explanation of what the rhetorical situation is, and specific characteristics of effective and persuasive arguments

In the United States when a woman becomes pregnant she has the choice to either have and keep their baby, put their baby up for adoption, or have an abortion. However, when God blesses us with the miracle of a child, he does not want the baby to be killed in an abortion. According to Right to Life of Holland (RTLOH), a website of people against abortion, in the United States 2,900 babies are killed everyday due to abortion (3). These babies are not given a chance to live or

I agree with Peter Singer’s argument that most people in affluent societies are morally required to give more of their money and resources to combating global poverty and famine than they currently do. This will be supported by the utilitarian argument, that net utility should always be maximised, by exploring his belief that this should be obligatory rather than supererogatory as well as investigating the influence of basic physical and psychological needs. I will also argue against the “Demandingness Objection”, a strong objection to Singer’s views.

Utilitarianism, which focuses on the consequences of actions, emphasizes that actions are right in proportion when they promote happiness and wrong as they tend to reverse it. To some Utilitarians, what matters is the results; to others however, the process is just as important as the outcome. Overall though, an act is considered morally right if it results in the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Two examples of how utilitarian ideologies can vary are seen with Peter Singer and Kelsey Timmerman. Peter Singer argues that we should give large portions of our income to aid those in need.

Peter Singer is a philosopher who has a utilitarian view about how humans should live their lives. His central claim is that people should sacrifice the money they earn and put almost all of it towards effective charities. He believes that this money would have been used to buy luxuries and those are things that you don’t need. It is also his mentality that if we are able to avoid something bad from happening like death, without sacrificing anything that holds that much significance to us, then we ought to do it. Donating our extra money to save or dramatically improve the lives of those in poverty around the world is the morally right thing to do. Even though, I know about the extreme hardship people face around the world, I disagree with

The issue that is being discussed is the way we spend the money is a form of Ethic, and ethic is more than what we decide is what we know that is right or wrong. The importance of acknowledge what is right or wrong to decide everything in this life. In the video “Peter Singer’s Ethics” the author made a significant questions such as what we should spend our money on? Or how we spend that money?” because ethic is about “the basic choices that we are making our lives and one of those choices of how do we spend our money” (Singer, 2010) “Also, I agree that we all have a limited amount of money to spend, and we all have moral obligations in order to use our money to help

Once we are was born, our life was in mother's hands. She has the power to give a life or kill us. After reading "Value of a choice and chose to value" article, the feminist's academic journal by Bertha Alvarez Manninen, which has a pro-choice position, I realized that I began to ask myself more and more questions. So why should mothers choice be a cost of her child's life that was not born yet?

This leads me onto why I think that the fetus’ right outweighs the mother’s due to the its potential future. The fetus not only has a right to life, but has a right to a good quality of life in the future. Don Marquis illustrates this nicely in his text ‘Why

When conflicts such as moral contradictions and inconsistencies arise, conversations including ethics and moral reasoning is the only way to solve these inconsistencies. Those who are genuine devotees of a certain religion may question if their religion’s moral instructions make sense according to one another. In these distinct cases, intelligent resolution of the claims can only be sorted out by putting in place an unbiased standard that can classify the competing viewpoints. This is where ethics comes in as the neutrality in the form of critical thinking, proficient arguments, and careful analysis.

Both the mother and the fetus are innocent human lives. Even though the fetus may not be capable of understanding, it is still a life and is dependent upon the mother for life. However, the fetus

Peter Singer, a utilitarian philosopher who specializes in applied ethics, is known either as infamous or famous depending on one’s philosophy. Singer has spoken on a multitude of sensitive topics throughout his career drawing praise and controversy. Notably you can find Singer’s position on solving world poverty in his essay “The Solution to World Poverty”. In his essay, he attempts to persuade readers to follow his thought that it is immoral not to give all your excess wealth to penurious children. To a degree, he accomplishes his objective within the first half of his essay, using two hypothetical examples that appeal to emotion. However, Singer’s case falls short of completely selling his utilitarian philosophy, due to his disconnect with the reality of human nature.