Peter Singer's Tractatus Moralis-Singulorum

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.

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.

The three principles of utilitarianism are “1. All ‘pleasures’ or benefits are not equal, 2. The system presumes that one can predict the consequences of one’s actions, and 3. There is little concern for individual rights” (Pollock,

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

Peter Singer comes to the conclusion that we ought to continue to give in a greater capacity in every way until our quality of life tampers down. He makes the notation that suffering is bad, but according to his proposed argument, we need to continue giving at the expense of are an own comfort. At what point does sacrificing our personal comforts mutate into our own suffering, our own opposition to happiness and highest amount of pleasure according to utilitarianism? Singer’s proposed principles are counterintuitive in both a philosophical way as it’s both demanding and restrictive and in a real world sense as he oversimplified complex issues like poverty. What can't save everyone and certainly not at the expense of our own

Peter Singer starts his ethical debate by essentially trapping readers into an ethical paradox. Singer argues that, “how could anyone consider a pair of shoes, or missing an hour or two at work, a good reason for not saving a child's life,” to guilt readers, even if for an admirable cause, into becoming sympathetic for Singer’s utilitarian mission (“The Life You Can Save,” Singer).  Singer makes the logical assumption that all human lives hold equal value, even when not drowning right in front of you. Yet, he claims, we repeatedly choose to put more value into the lives of those right in front of us, as we let “nearly 10 million children under five years old” die because of poverty (“The Life You Can Save,” Singer). Singer then goes on to address

What is morally right? People throughout time have pondered this question and yet there is still no overall idea set in stone. The story “The ones who walk away from Omelas”, by Ursula K. Le Guin, deals with the morally grey subject of the needs of the many versus the needs of the few. The two philosophers who ideas will be used to help understand and reason with this subject are Kant and Mill. Immanuel Kant, the father of modern philosophy, argued for deontological ethics, in which mortality is based on duty and obligation. Conversely, John Stuart Mill, a famous 19th century philosopher, supported and revised the idea of Utilitarianism, a belief in which morality is based on which action yields the greatest quality and quantity of happiness. The story poses question like, “is allowing a child to suffer for the greater good morally right?”, and, “are people who walk away from this injustice morally right?”. Both of these philosophers would approach these questions from different angles and come to reflated conclusions. This paper will show that within the context of “The Ones Who Walk away from Omelas” , even though at first the choices being made would see cruel, Mill ideas are the ones that present itself to be more correct.

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

The relationship between the individual and his/her society is a subject of continual interest not only to philosophers and religious thinkers. We, as individuals, have hopes, plans, needs, and expectations. Likewise, society has its own, which present itself in the form of laws, traditions, and needs for the greater good. Often, these needs and demands of the individual come in conflict with those of society, and this raises problems for both. Due to the

Utilitarianism is a moral theory which seeks to maximize welfare and utility by defining any given situation as right and wrong depending solely on its outcome, yet while utilitarian thinking does in fact accomplish its goal of creating a universal moral code, it does so at the expense of freedom, oftentimes even going against moral instincts. For that reason, utilitarianism works well up to a certain point before it becomes unreasonable. The point where utilitarian thinking becomes unreasonable may be seen in the contrast between The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas, the terrorist dilemma, the trolley problem, and the surgeon dilemma. The people of Omelas sacrifice the well-being of one child in order to give happiness to thousands of citizens,

Singer has presented a significant argument about the value of morality in human behavior. He states that human beings have a responsibility to ensure that they prevent bad things from happening when they do not have to sacrifice a comparable moral obligation. In addition, he points out the fact that children die from starvation to be an indication of the lack of morality in the world. In addition, he proceeds to state that the society can prevent the death of a lot of people by causing a significant drop in the consumption of luxurious items.

Adopting a utilitarian approach, Peter Singer makes an argument for a personal responsibility that each of us should extend our resources as far as they will reach to help others in need. He is compelled to speak about the lack of interest from those with the ability to help. Asserting his position that humanity has an obligation and ethical responsible to recognize the need of others and give as much as we possibly can to help relieve that suffering.

As a whole, the average American family will spend around one third of their income on goods and services that are considered to be unnecessary (not direct quote, citing source of statistic, Singer, 230). This spending phenomenon is brought to light by the writing of Peter Singer, a moral philosopher at Princeton University, who presents a solution to poverty around the world by arguing the American’s habit of spending is immoral due to the consequence of the suffering of those in poverty that could be prevented if the money was donated to their cause as opposed to being spent on items that are not necessities. As an objection, I will claim Singer’s argument is invalid due to the assumptions and implications Singer uses in relation to Mackie’s Error Theory, which is an argument based upon there being no universal and objective moral values or facts, and through this theory present Singer’s contradiction of himself that creates structural issues for his argument.

Society’s expectations and prejudice dictate personal relationships and influences the next generation. This is where the continuation of oppression and destruction lies. Everyone assumes that they will be able to follow the ideal moral codes, without listening to the society’s prejudice. However, each individual falls into the society’s expectations unconsciously through the exposure and education they receive since they are young. This analysis shows that the end of oppression and destruction lies in the proper education of moral codes to the next

Utilitarianism is one of the most convincing approaches to normative ethics to be noted through out the history of philosophy. It was not until the nineteenth century that utilitarianism was fully articulated. This movement is accredited to, but not limited to, eighteenth and nineteenth century philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism, although not theorized until much later in history, proto-utilitarian positions like those articulated by Epicurus could be noted throughout the history of ethical theory . Peter Singer, arguably one of the most controversial and influential present day philosophers, utilizes utilitarian theories to address current ethical issues. Singer implores others to evaluate questionable ethical