Analysis Of Moral Obligation By Peter Singer

273 Words2 Pages
The argument Peter Singer brought to the table explicitly mentioned that it was everyone’s moral obligation to give to charities, in the hopes of aiding those in need. I argue against that point, and instead suggest that it should be promoted to the general public that charities are given to.
A “moral obligation”, isn’t something which actually exists. The simple reason for this, is because morality in of itself, is completely relative. There is no objectivity to the idea of morality; it differs from person to person. For instance, one individual could believe that theft is wrong, however, another individual could very well believe that theft is completely fine. If the general public’s image of what’s right and wrong, then it’s ludicrous
Open Document