Boyer.) I feel like that is what is wrong with America today the farther we get away from our original morals and values the more criminal acts we see on an everyday basis. I think it is a great idea for wealthier individuals to give to charities and to have mercy toward families that are poor, but I don’t feel like the government has the right to tell someone that they are obligated to give. With my personal religious values I feel you should give but you should not announce it with trumpets (Mathew 6:2) so I feel like if the government had a hand in your personal decisions you would be announcing it.
Peter Singer argues that prosperous people should donate their excess money to the overseas aid groups. When saying this, he believes Americans should stop spending their money on luxuries such as a TV, a computer, a car, and videogames. Instead of spending money on items such as that, he thought we should start sending money to those who are starving in other countries and need our help. There are pros and cons to Singer’s argument and both can be greatly supported.
The Life You Can Save by Peter Singer is a book explaining that our current response to world poverty is not only lacking, but ethically weak. He argues that we need to change our views of what is involved in living a moral life. Throughout the book, Peter proposes ways to save money to donate and then giving it to reliable charities and also, he offers a seven-point plan that mixes personal philanthropy, local activism, and political awareness to help us play our part in bringing about change. In response to this book, some people have taken Singer’s advice and started to follow his plan towards helping end world poverty, while others have criticized him and exclaimed that it is not his place to tell people what to do. I myself agree with
Millions of people are hungry and thousands of individuals die of starvation each day. Meanwhile, the average American spends a portion of their income on luxuries, such as televisions to imported cars. In the article, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Peter Singer stresses that Americans should donate all of their income that is not needed for necessities to overseas charities and aid organizations in order to resolve world poverty. However, his straightforward proposition to end world poverty lays on a controversial topic that questions one’s morals and rights.
Alana Ellis Carolyn Crane English 1C 6/26/2017 Paper 1 Many people say that they want to end world hunger, stop global warming, create world peace. To these people, the answers seem to lie in charity. Charity is defined as “generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering” and, “an institution engaged in relief of the poor” (Merriam Webster Dictionary online). Motivated by the first definition of charity, people are driven to engage in trying to help those in need and alleviate their suffering.
In David Barno’s , “A New Moral Compact,” he stresses about our countries current military situation, which is all-volunteer. Barno has also served time in the military himself as a lieutenant general. He claims that the countries current dependence on the all-volunteer military, allows us to rush into war without thinking about the consequences first. Barno proposes the idea, “that every use of military force over 60 days would automatically trigger an annual draft lottery to call up 10,000 men and women” (p.20).This solution is useful but it is not useful enough because it targets sympathy from the people while he needs to target the president because the president can initiate a war without consent of the people or Congress.
Question 2 Peter Singer in his paper “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” described a principle I know as “Singers Cardinal Principle.” The principle reads “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable more importance, we ought, morally to do it.” Singer is saying that if one person has a opportunity to prevent something wrong form occurring without that persons action ending up causing the same or worst results to happen, then that person is morally obligated to do such action. In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” Singer argues that people who are from wealthy countries should change the way they live to living committed to helping those people in need.
There can be no doubt that people should be morally free to live their own lives and pursue and develop their own interests, to a certain degree at the very least. This necessitates then that a person is morally permitted to dedicate one’s time, energy, and money to activities that don’t directly have an impact on famine relief or similar worthy causes. For example, it could frequently happen and has happened whereby certain pursuits and recreations have beneficial and favourable outcomes and consequences that could not have been foreseen. My argument lies with the issue that if people are not free to follow their intellectual interests when it is not obvious what positive impact they might have, or whether they would have any positive repercussions at all, humanity in general could be worse off than we actually are. This is tied to Singer’s argument if people are obligated to do as much as they possibly can, to aid famine relief, they would have to give up many of their own special projects and interests in order to do so.
Money: the root of most social problems and one of the few matters that almost everyone has an opinion on. Peter Singer’s “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” a newspaper article, is no exception. Singer argues that one should donate all unnecessary money to the less fortunate because of the morality of the situation. However, though the goal is noble, his commentary is very ineffective due to its condescending tone, lack of hard facts, and overall extremism. The piece is written by Peter Singer, an Australian professor of bioethics at Princeton University.
In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer argues that some morally good actions, such as donating to relief funds and charitable organizations, should be duties. His argument is as follows: 1) Suffering and death are bad, whether from starvation, lack of shelter, or insufficient medical care. (P1) 2) We are morally obligated to prevent bad things from happening if we are able to do so and we would not sacrifice anything morally equivalent in the process.
By providing a specific number, $200, Singer demonstrates how simple and reasonable it is to save a child in poverty. Additionally, he repeats, “to save a child’s life,” which demonstrates exactly what a $200 donation could do for a child in poverty. As an example, Singer references a credible philosopher, Peter Unger, and acknowledges that “by his calculation, $200 in donations would help a sickly 2-year-old transform into a healthy 6-year-old.” Next, he establishes, “if you were to give up dining out just for one month, you would easily save that amount.” Singer emphasizes this to show the reader how simple it is to save $200, and, more importantly, save the life of a helpless child.
Although Walter eventually does the morally correct thing he still has bad morals. Walter does the right thing by standing up to Lindner. When Lindner actually arrives and Walter is about to disgrace himself and the black community by begging Lindner for the money he can’t do it. Instead he says, “We don’t want to make no trouble for nobody or fight no causes, and we will try to be good neighbors.
In this paper, I argue that Singer’s strong principle of sacrifice is flawed due to its over -demandingness. Singer denotes that as affluent individuals, we have a moral obligation to sacrifice up to the point of comparable moral significance to help those in absolute poverty. This essay will argue against Singer’s strong principle as it is psychologically too strong of an argument to be morally obliging. Singer’s argument exhorts us to give based on the controversial principle of comparable moral significance, to donate any income beyond that which is marginally necessary. Singer justifies this based on the knowledge that the suffering of a poor person should be no less significant to that of an affluent one (Singer, 1972).
• Ethical Responsibilities Even though economical and legal responsibilities exemplify about fairness and justice, ethical responsibilities cover those activities and practices that are expected or prohibited by members of society even though they are not codified in law. Ethical responsibilities represent those norms, standards or expectations that reflect a jest of what employees, consumers and shareholders regard as just, fair or in keeping the protection or respect of stakeholders’ moral rights. They are important to perform in a manner consistent with expectations of societal and ethical norms. The firms should recognize and respect the ethical moral norms adopted by society from time to time.