Moral argument

I’m a strong believer in that anyone can make their own choices in life. There is no such thing as “moral obligation” in my books, however there does exist “courtesy” or “kind-heartedness.” Peter Singer’s argument regarding famine, affluence, and morality is, in my opinion, strongly influenced by sympathetic and empathetic feelings based on observations in a still developing country. In a sense, his reasoning is subjective and biased because he seems to focus only on the problem, and not the circumstances

S.). Despite this, arguments on both sides usually fall short of proving their claim, relying on emotion and political dogma to assert their claim, instead of their side’s rational arguments. Don Marquis (abortion as immoral) and Judith Jarvis Thomson (abortion as not necessarily immoral), however, break this general trend remarkably well. It is the purpose of this paper to outline why abortion is immoral (according to Don Marquis) and, after showing an inadequacy his argument faces from the writing

in terms of what is just and what is unjust. Professor Michael J. Sandel argues in favor of affirmative action. However, the arguments he uses when presenting his case are not particularly strong. In the “Arguing Affirmative Action” section of his book, Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? Sandel presents three arguments in supporting affirmative action. The first argument is correcting for the testing gap, though Sandel notes that this is the least important of the three rationales he presents

always been those who are above the rest with their wealth and prosperity and those who are poor and could use a hand. With this rises the dilemma of whether it is a moral obligation for those who are wealthy to lend a helping hand to the hungry people that are less fortunate than them. That brings the question of what would this moral obligation be; would it be something that we perceive as being the correct thing to do or an actual obligation that is required of us. The two men whose articles I will

who are experiencing famine, deaths and diseases in poor countries. However, the moral necessity of doing so has been controversial in human’s society for years. One philosopher named Peter Singer gives his opinion in the article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, and presents a powerful argument supporting his claim. In this essay, I will explain his conclusion and main argument, propose one objection to his argument, and evaluate the validity of my objection by considering possible response that

of the century. Argentina, led by Maradona, won the prestigious event, and Maradona was named the best player of the tournament, winning the Golden Ball. The incident, however, is referenced till date. III. Moral Arguments While analysing comments and reactions, it is apparent that the moral theories of emotivism and egoism are instrumental to the justification of the Hand of God. Egoism proposes people should “act only in their own interest.” According to this theory, all that matters is one’s

In “Sex, Lies, and Consent,” Tom Dougherty argues the Lenient Thesis from the substantive account of consent. In this essay, I will discuss and explain Dougherty’s argument. Then, I will present Neil Manson 's objection that Dougherty account of consent mistakenly centralizes the role of scope in determining one’s range of restrictions for consent. Finally, I will present a case that disputes Manson’s opposition to Dougherty and how Dougherty could address Manson’s charge against him. To understand

In Peter Singer’s article, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, he proposes the question: “What are the moral implications of a situation like the one in Bengal (230)?” In order to answer this question Singer presents at least two arguments which involve what one ought to do and the moral consequences of not acting or pursuing our moral obligations. His first and central conclusion is that we “ought” to behave in such a way as to decrease suffering and death as a result of lack of food, shelter and medical

As controversial as it is, various philosophers have proposed impressive approaches, aiming to offer perspectives to address the moral issues that exist when discussing abortion. Don Marquis, an American Philosopher, argues that the killing of a foetus is on par with the killing of an innocent adult human being, morally speaking. But how can this be? Marquis’ argument is based on a notion that the foetus is a “potential person” and that it has future aspirations and projections which are inhibited

Peter Singer’s argument on the duties that should be allocated to wealthy people in terms of assisting people from undeveloped nations to combat global poverty. In the first section, his argument will be explained and summarized, followed by the second section which will present the minor flaws opposing philosophers find in his argument, however find his overall argument to be valid. Singer’s primary argument on world poverty goes as follows. Singer argues that as humans, we have a moral duty to try