Famine Affluence And Morality Analysis

1790 Words8 Pages

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. He starts by making …show more content…

Rawls was not happy whit the original arguments about what makes a social institution just. The utilitariam argument says that societies should pursue the greatest good for the greatest number. This argument has many problems, excpecially that it seems to be consistant with the belief of majorities over minorities. The institution argument holds that human intuit what is wright or wrong by some innate moral sense. Rawls attempts to provide a good account of social justice through the social contract approach. This approach says that a society is in some sense is an agreement amount all those who make up the society. In the analogy Rawls shows his disagrements and gives solutions or what he things is a more just way of doing such things. Rawls starts off by saying “I believe that the contrast between the contract view and utilitarianism remains essentially the same in all these cases. There fore I shall compare justice as fairness with familiar variants of intuitionism, perfectionism, and utilitarianism in order to bring out the underlying difference in the simplest way.” Rawls strongly opposes utilitarianism. Rawls analogy has a few basic parts. He first talks about what I know as a “Rational Self Interest Maximizer.” He states a person quite properly acts, at least when others are not affected, to achieve his own greatest god, to advance his rational ends as far as possible. This shows a rational self interest maximizer looks at all options and chooses most happiness over the longest period of time. This person will look at all his choices and pick the one where his rational desires are maximized. Rawls states in the article “the main idea is that society is rightly ordered, and therefor just, when its major institutions are arranged so as to achieve the greatest net balance of satisfaction summed over all the individuals belonging to

Open Document