The Moral Obligation Of An Affluent Lifestyle Without Saving Life

1364 Words6 Pages
We are now going to unravel Singer’s arguments for our moral obligation to give to others. He first compares allowing the absolute poverty to suffer to what some suggest is the equivalence to murder. An example given in the passage is a person who lives an affluent lifestyle that does not contribute to the poor might as well shoot some ‘peasants’ in India because the actions are equivalent. Singer would argue that this verdict is too harsh and evidently this big question of moral obligation should be taking a new approach. But first let exam why living an affluent lifestyle without saving life is not equal to intentional murder. I think that these five points made by Singer provide grounds for dismal of Zell claiming we are murders for not donating a kidney. The first point he makes exams the motivation behind murder. A murderer typically is sadistic with intentions of causing harm onto another being. Zell’s wife (who did not approve of his kidney donation) is what Singer would define as selfish if anything, but not comparable to a murderer. Second, the avoidance of killing asks less of us than making change to our standard lifestyle. Since there is a law in place for murder it is easier to avoid. However, giving the money that we live comfortably on to save others is necessary to do, but we do not have to give money away to kill someone. This makes a considerable difference in which these two actions morally weigh out. Third, when shooting someone death or injury is
Open Document