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. (P2) 3) Suffering and death in the world can be relieved by monetary donations. (P3) C) We ought to donate as much as we can provided we don’t sacrifice anything of comparable moral importance. (from P1, P2, P3) Singer accepts the first premise that death and starvation from lack of basic needs are bad, which is difficult to dispute. …show more content…
In his paper, Singer also introduces a qualified version of P2 that states we are not required to prevent an evil if we must sacrifice anything morally significant to do so. The qualified version tempers his argument so that some actions required under the original premise would not be required under the qualified version. For example, if the only way you can send enough money to people devastated by a hurricane is to donate the funds raised for a new school library, you ought to donate the money according to the original premise. However, by the qualified version, misappropriating funds and denying schoolchildren a library is morally wrong, so you are not morally required to donate the money to the relief fund. I will focus on the original version of Singer’s argument in this essay because Singer prefers the stronger
She speaks of positive duties as, “doing acts of e.g to look after children or aged parents” (380). Then she further explains that positive duties can extend such as acts of charity which are hardly said to be owed. This doctrine explains that it is morally worse to do harm than to allow that harm to occur. One example that Foot gives of a negative is the case of the steering, driver, who has a duty to refrain from injuring five men and duty to injuring one. One example of a positive duty that Foot gives is that of the hospital staff members that are faced with a scarce-drug conflict.
I also agree with the fact that many people do step down from helping in any situation if they see someone give too much money, when they can only give a little embarrassing amount. Instead of that other person helping they are really damaging others from getting help. If everyone just gave or helped a little that would be enough for everyone else to see and to feel guilt for not stepping in and it would also cross out others stating that they do not have much to give; if in case everyone gave a reasonable amount that no one could not afford. For Singer it was about keeping your morals in place and that one ought to do what is known to be the right thing to do. To help in any way possible and in doing so the world would be very different and there would be less
The philosophical issue that we have considered since the Mid-Term that has interested me the most was Global Poverty. Singer’s moral principle “If is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it. I agree with this fully because everybody should be willing to help others when they are suffering without having to thinking about it. I just really understood where Peter Singer was coming from. The example he made about the toddler flailing in the pond and if I would get out of my car to help the child I will be late for work.
Peter Singer is an Australian moral philosopher who applies ethics to many controversial issues. One of these issues was discussed in his piece of writing titled, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.” Singer proposes a fair and strong assumption concerning his argument that, “suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad…” but stretches his assumptions too much when demanding that, “it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening…”, and that we, “ought morally to do so.” As far as assumptions go I believe that Singer hit his first one right on the head of the nail. Singer tells the readers that these issues of lack of supplies is a terrible thing in the world and frankly you would have to have some guts to
Due to this reason, Singer states that the fair donation argument fails and would not be enough to fix the problem. Now that we have an understanding of Singer’s beliefs, I can show how Singer would respond to the question given in the prompt. Peter would say that yes he should donate, but the small amounts he would be choosing to donate would be nowhere near the amount that he should be choosing to give. Singer would say that any money that he isn’t spending on necessities should be donated to help those in dire situations, and that not doing so is
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.
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.
Social Darwinism and the Social Gospel Movement are contrasting systems of belief. Social Darwinism suggests that people are in the social or financial state that they deserve. This appealed to the work ethic that anyone could do well if they worked hard enough. For some, this was a source of inspiration to work hard to excel.
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.
Peter Singer argues, in “Rich and Poor” that it is out obligation morally to help people that are in extreme poverty. This is what I believe the three main topics to be. The first is that we owe it to the people in need to prevent something bad if we do not have to sacrifice anything of significance. The second thing he really talks about is absolute poverty, and absolute effluence. The second topic is very simply put, absolute poverty is bad.
Singer attempts to close this gap with the age old question of ‘why don’t we give the riches’ money to the poor’. The essence of Singer’s argument is obviously end world poverty. Probably the strongest point made in Singer’s argument is the involvement of the whole world. By taking this money from those across the world eliminates the opportunity for indifference. To stand with indifference is to stand with the oppressor.
Caleb Stephens April 15, 2017 Introduction to Philosophy The goal of this paper is to demonstrate that Philippa Foot’s objection, raised to her own argument against utilitarianism, is correct. Her initial thesis is that benevolence, while the foundation of utilitarianism, is an internal end of morality, rather than the ultimate end of morality. The possible objection to this that there must be some overarching reason behind morality, which must imply a form of consequentialism. The response she offers is that there should be some other form of morality, which is a weak argument, as it does not provide an alternate conception of morality itself.
Singer’s Solution Good or Not? Who wouldn’t want to find a solution to end or reduce poverty in the world? A utilitarian philosopher, Peter Singer stated his own solution in his essay called “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”. Singer’s solution is simple: people shouldn’t be spend their money on luxuries, instead they should donate their money to overseas aid organizations. Peter uses two characters in his essay in hope to get to the hearts and minds of the people, and encourage them to donate.
Why are people still poor to this day? That is a very broad question but we do know that poverty is still a crucial problem to achieving overall world happiness even in 2018. Poverty has been around for millennia but it 's even more of a problem now in 2018. This is because it is becoming more extreme. For example, in Afghanistan 36% of the population, lives in absolute, extreme poverty and 37% lives just above the determined poverty line.
Singer ties this back to the opportunity that many have to save the lives of children by sending money to charities but choose not