Peter Singer in his famous paper “Famine, Affluence and Morality” begins with assumptions “The suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad” also he gives his second assumption that “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it”. Singer gives an application of his principle, by ”the drowning child in the pond” case. Imagine you are walking past a pond and you see a little toddler drowning in the shallow pond, you have 2 options now: first- you can pull out he child and save him, however you will ruin your favorite expensive shoes.
Morality of Charity: Analysis of Peter Singer’s Famine, Affluence, and Morality In Peter Singer’s essay Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Singer concludes that people whose basic needs are met and have additional resources to spare should provide aid to those who are suffering. He also explains that alleviating suffering should not be viewed as charity but rather as a moral obligation. His argument is as follows: (P1) To suffer and die due to lack of food, shelter, and medical care is bad. (P2)
In the first place, four major arguments are synthesized and presented in standard forms. The first argument is: Premise 1: Lack of food, shelter, and medical care leads to suffering and death of refugees. Hidden Premise: Suffering and death of people are tragedy and undesirable, hence bad.
What separates humans from animals is that when the same tragedy occurs over and over again without hinting at its end, people have the conscience to push for a solution to end the vicious cycle. When evil, greed, and hatred seem to be the driving force of the world, it is the responsibility of humans to advocate for a better life and to even “suffer and die for a concept,” if that is necessary (Steinbeck 151). Change and justice will never occur if everyone stands back idly, waiting for someone else to do it. Change begins with every individual, and they must make the change happen, especially if no one else
During his illustration of his principle, his definition of morality seems to be unstable and ambiguity increases with phrases like “moral difference”, “moral significance”, “moral autonomy”. It is likely that when it comes to significant difference between his principle and traditional values, he tends to use morality to confuse readers and make his statements more mysterious, more highly standardized and in a way, more likely to be trustable because we tend to believe in what we do not fully understand even confusingly. Another ambiguity arises from the exact phrase in the main contention, “same moral significance”, Singer explain it as “not to promote what is good”, it raises another problem that what the distinction between good and bad is and it always remains a debatable
Thus, since it is impractical to use a rigid moral system, both Weber and Sophocles discuss the importance of responsibility and consequences in decision making. This conception of responsibility and consequences is significant because it differs from a utilitarian quest for “the greater good”. When considering one’s responsibilities, it is inadvisable to cause pain to the individuals that a political leader is responsible for, regardless of the total pleasure it may lead to. In the case of Antigone, Creon’s decision leads to a tragic outcome because he does not take into account the consequences of his actions. His resolve to obstinately stick to his decision is his ultimate downfall.
Audience: People ignorant about the struggles of homelessness and would rather make homeless people “disappear” than help them Message/Goal of this piece: Addressing the issue of homelessness and raising awareness to this program as an alternative to making it a crime to be living in poverty. It shows that chromic homelessness can be solved Behaviors/ Aspects of society being satirized: The treatment and attitude towards homelessness and homeless people e.g. banning, arresting, and giving them fines. This piece shows the ridiculousness of the anti-homeless argument and that they are lazy moochers undeserving of help. People who would rather spend to criminalize homelessness than use the same time/money/resources to help fix this problem Background
Physician assisted suicide, although legal in some states, should remain illegal because it goes against religious and moral beliefs. “In physician assisted suicide, the physician provides the necessary means or information and the patient performs the act” (Endlink). Supporters of assisted-suicide laws believe that mentally competent people who are in misery and have no chance of long-term survival, should have the right to die if and when they choose. I agree that people should have the right to refuse life-saving treatments, written in the patient bill of rights.
The image shows a famine victim outside of a feeding center. The most striking thing about this image was the irony. The main focal piece being the person in this instance who is malnourished and on the verge of dying whilst outside a feeding center. This suggests to the viewer that there isn’t enough food at the feeding centers to feed everyone and at the same time projects the image of people starving all around the world whilst we turn our noses up at food we don’t like and take this basic necessity for granted.
Unaddressed as even a possible outcome in the text, would acting in a way contrary to the principle still be considered acting within the boundaries defined by the method? If an action has taken place in a manner undefined by the principle, has the principle then changed? I ask these questions because it seems unlikely that Singers’ principles could ever be fully applied to society. If Singer, himself, admits the application of his methods to be implausible, is his ideology even
In order for civilizations to thrive, they must have some sort of system in place in order to maintain stability amongst the populace. Without any societal order, anarchy runs rampant, and that is the bane of any civilization. This is so because humanity, despite having all the correct faculties, inherently does what comes easiest to them, and often times, the easiest thing to do is not the right thing. Why work in order to receive a salary to use to purchase things, when you can just steal them from others? Why try to create a committed relationship of your own, when you can just take someone else’s significant other through less than savory means?
Wilder shows how gentrification can go wrong. He blames the government for allowing families to be homeless. If the government were to stop, education reforms that cause school privatization in low-income districts or hospital closures or anything that strains the working class people any further, Wilder explains, then working class communities will survive and no families will be displaced because of gentrification. A solution to the problem Wilder provides is found in Oldenburg’s article. If these communities that are no longer working and are at the risk of becoming gentrified, then some work can be put into it by people who truly care about the community enabling it to build up and become better.
Therefore, people may see going against an unjust law as something to avoid because of the aftereffect they will be having to face. Furthermore, It is right to oppose something that is unjust. Individuals should do what they best believe is right in their opinions but laws shouldn’t be fully subjected by the people only or else it may lead to future conflicts and misleading mistakes. Overall, by desired changes, it causes destructive tension for
Should our country sacrifice the solutions our country needs just to keep within the confines of political correctness? That would be destructive for the well- being of our nation at this time. Ben Carson is a proponent of saying things as they are and he could care less about being politically correct. At this moment, most American’s support Ben Carson’s idea of not being politically correct if we want to fix the problems in our country. Political correctness possess a threat on what we say and how we say it.