To Ought or Not to Ought… That is the Question Humanity rises from the predominant catalyst of

1200 WordsApr 23, 20195 Pages
To Ought or Not to Ought… That is the Question Humanity rises from the predominant catalyst of social mores that align with society’s norms. Morality, although a proverbial construct we familiarize with, fails to be defined universally. As with any ethical issue, the distinction between “good” or “bad” has been debated amongst philosophers, theologians, and even within internal consciences. Common-sense morality lacks empiricism compared to science, yet its implications hold equal weight, for a well-defined moral construct gives rise to individual and societal ramifications. Often, it seems unquestionable why certain acts are deemed “bad”. However, these instincts lack universal application, thus morality must be clearly defined.…show more content…
Singer utilizes repetition to cement unassailability by claiming that although “one may reach the same view by different routes…it is…impossible to refute...”(231). Singer’s argument then expands on the dogma that if we can prevent bad without sacrificing any moral importance, “we ought, morally, to do it” (231). A stark contrast from his initial premise, the second premise serves as a comprehensive requisite creed. Singer goes onto precisely define what comprises sacrificial moral importance, and generally concludes to “prevent what is bad, promote what is good” (231). This belief also rests on irrefutability, since counter arguing the promotion of bad and prevention of good alludes to senseless logic. The seemingly vague premise becomes inarguable with this distinction, establishing cogency. Singer further parallels the famine to a situation in which a child is drowning in a pond. If faced with saving a life versus the shortcoming of getting clothes wet, one should obviously save the child. Here the ‘sacrifice’ is overwhelmingly insignificant to a life, which directly corresponds to saving the famished. One cannot justify indulgences or menial personal sacrifices over a human life. Singer exemplifies the absurdity of supererogatory ‘charity’, for the notion of charity being defined presently deems us ‘charitable’ for saving a life. Before reaching his conclusion, Singer addresses three
Open Document