In Peter Singer’s Famine, Affluence, and Morality, he makes the claim that we ought to give up any surplus money we might have and send it to places like Bengal to prevent people from suffering or dying. However, is this really something we are obligated to do? Singer relies on two important yet controversial
Even though, the good life caused Socrates an early death. Also, breaking the law may result in harming others and according to Socrates harming others can harm the soul. By harming others one is being unjust and unjust deeds harm the soul. So what is the point of breaking the law if I will be hurt in the end? Furthermore, Socrates would never rationalize breaking the law because it would be violating an agreement made between the citizen and the state.
He believes that saving the child from drowning is his moral obligation. This example of saving the child from drowning demonstrates the concept that “if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening” then we should do so (p. 874). Singer also uses this scenario to explain that we should not be worried about trivial things when it comes to helping
Hamlet was despairing to live in such disgusting family, so he wished to escape by dying. He failed, because he could not accept suicide morally. The idea of Hamlet about suicide and the common belief could by proven by the famous philosopher Plato. Plato showed in Laws that suicide was shameful and disgraceful; the perpetrator should be buried in an unmarked grave. (Plato.stanford.edu, 2018) As a result, people were unwilling to suicide in order to maintain their reputation, and because their moral standard refused them to be a coward by escaping from incapable events.
They would have dropped their oars again, in panic, to roll for cover under the decking” (Homer 708). Odysseus was right about not telling them they would all eventually died because even if they knew they couldn't have done anything about it or to protect themselves. Odysseus was a good leader by not telling his men they would die, because nothing good would have come out of
While pointing out that it is much easier to ignore an appeal for money to help those you’ll never meet than to consign a child to death, Singer uses his utilitarian philosophy to deflect the argument, stating that “if the upshot of the American’s failure to donate the money is that one more kid dies… then it is, in some sense, just as bad as selling the kid to the organ peddlers.” This argument, however, can only be made while using false dilemmas. Singer also addresses a large criticism of his work, that one can’t decide moral issues by taking opinion polls. The argument to this reiterates how the audience would feel being in these situations. This argument is poor as it does not address how the entire article is based on how everyone feels about this particular subject. The point is never satisfactorily addressed elsewhere, making the counterargument
Odysseus is not a hero because he was not humble or good at accepting the help that he received, and he also acted before synthesizing the consequences that he would face in the future. Odysseus was could have been a great hero in everyone’s eyes if he tried to learn from people the mysteries that are unknown to him instead of diving head first into trouble. When Odysseus returned to Circe’s Island, Circe gave him a course and gave “advice on how to avoid the danger he will face”. But, yet Odysseus ignored her warning of not fighting the sea monster, Scylla, which took six of his best men. His thought of getting home and his selfishness concealed him from trying to protect his crew.
To be a good human being and to succeed in life, we should keep calm when other people around us are losing their cool. We should not lose our temper even if others are blaming us for their fault. It is human nature to save oneself from the blame and pin it on another. But, you should not lose your temper because of this, if fact, losing your temper does not solve a problem, instead it usually intensifies it. Keeping your head cool allows you to think wisely, face the situation, and ultimately, think of a
If we put ourselves before others, ignoring moral obligation to avoid danger, why are we liable for omission? Example, if a kid is drowning and the mother saw it but she could not swim, should she throw herself into danger just to avoid being charged with omission? Omission is not about failing to act when we have the duty, but also when it is expected to react to that circumstances, but we have to consider about our capabilities. . “It is not about what we do, but too what we do not do, for which we are accountable.” No action doesn’t amount to no crime but the statute arbitrates create offences of omission.
But Hamlet give up the good opportunity of killing Claudius because he hopes that his revenge for his father for a moral sake, not committing an impulsive revenge. Due to himself being too idealistic and restrained, he does not take decisive actions even after using the planned play to test the Claudius's conscience that could possibly expose himself and left himself in unfavorable circumstances. Hamlet’s inability to act is caused by his overanalysis of the situations that further render him from not carrying out actions in response. If Hamlet is not indecisive, he would not be uncertain about the evidence regarding to his uncle’s crime, he would not be delaying his revenge, he would not be having emotional breakdowns and become a tragic figure. Hamlet’s personality ‘borns’ and develops under his royal position and the growing