Peter Singer's Argument In Famine, Affluence And Morality

Argument 1(conclusion): Lack of food, shelter, and medical care is bad (Singer, 1972). The second argument is essentially upgraded from Argument 1. The author implicitly assumes it to help draw the overall contention. This essay spells it out as: Premise 1: Conditions like food shortage and poor sanitation reflect income imbalance.

In his opening affirmative, Warren begins with a terribly horrifying illustration. Though it is graphic and harsh, it is also effective in accomplishing its task of showing that pleasure is by no means a proper way to base an ethic system. In fact, Thomas would argue that this is about as evil as doctrine gets (Warren 9). This very thought will carry Warren through his first affirmative as he explains the fallacy of

Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” lays out a strong argument on why we are morally obligated to help those in need if we can. He first lays down a platform by saying that suffering and dying from starvation is bad, which most reasonable people would agree with. He builds on this by saying that if we can prevent something bad without causing any harm, then we are morally obligated to do it. This argument, much like the first, is one that would be widely accepted since most people wouldn’t want something bad to occur if they can prevent it.

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

In 1974, Garrett Hardin published a paper to make a case against helping the poor. Hardin’s arguments are compelling. This paper will show that many of the main moral approaches to global ethics concerning poverty and famine relief are conflicting, inadequate, and not able to withstand Hardin’s main argument. This paper will look at the arguments of Singer, O’Neill, and Pogge and show how none of these approach are viable as a global ethical basis for a solution to combat famine relief and poverty. Furthermore, it will show that Hardin’s own solution is not a viable option either.

Though Singer raises a great argument on morality and famine, his obligations can be too demanding. How much can morality demand of us? His obligations limit our freedom to act and may even demand us to act in opposition to our interests as he demands that we must always make the morally utmost choice. Singer’s principle also will require us to not favor our moral concerns we may have. Also, if everyone were to follow their moral obligations, wouldn’t people have sacrificed much more than they needed to?

By doing this, he would successfully prevent the peasant uprising in 1525, and render Martin Luther's movement motionless. However, to make this a reality, the Pope would have to regain the trust of the people. Considering that he was not seen as the most responsible with funds, if he were to lift the taxes on the lower class, they would begin to suspect a trap or a scam. To really make them trust him, he would have to make a big gesture to show his credibility. One way to do this would be to find the corrupt church officials, and removing them from their positions.

When taking a cursory glance at the concept of reconciliation, one can easily be fooled by the seemingly unending possibilities that it can offer to the process of post-conflict peacebuilding. However, spend a little more time attempting to fully grasp the nature of this notion; and one will find oneself feeling slightly cynical about what reconciliation can realistically achieve. While discovering that there ultimately is a problem with the current conception of reconciliation is rather simple, pinpointing the actual issues is not as easy. In his work entitled Reconciliation as Ideology and Politics, Andrew Schaap identifies six objections that he believes undermines the legitimacy of the idea that reconciliation processes invoke the common good. The objections to reconciliation that Schaap provides include – ‘its vagueness in meaning; its incompatibility with modern pluralistic societies; its presumption about pre-existing harmonious relationships;

This paper is regarding the article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” written by Peter Singer. In this article Singer gives a critique on how famine can be prevented by individuals in rich countries helping the ones who are in need of the famine relief. Singer believes that we have moral obligations to act in a certain way like to become committed to helping others in need. My views contradict to Peter Singer’s theory as it challenges the demanding and less demanding principles of Singer through analyzing and comparing them. Peter Singer argues that people, especially the ones that live in wealthy countries must alter their inception of morality and act upon that.

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 chapters 10 of readings in risk Steven Kelman explorers cost-benefit analysis on an ethical basis. He believes that their are many instances where cost-benefit analysis (a utilitarian concept) is morally wrong. He likens cost-benefit analysis to lying, though at first the positive effects may outweigh the negatives eventually the negative effects may become the dominant characteristic. The problem with the utilitarianism view is that in many cases we see the utilitarian approach as morally wrong, some acts are moral even if the cost outweighs the benefits. A further problem is how do you break down costs of immaterial things like happiness which are utterly subjective since we want to look at all the benefits and costs.

Tom Campbell explores the idea of poverty as a violation of human right. The premise of the reading presents a critical analysis of the most important attempts to conceptually explain the correlation between poverty and human rights. His standpoint seems to be obvious that there is still lack of conceptual clarity in the notion of poverty as a violation of human rights. Despite this conceptual gap, the approach conceives poverty as the cause of many human rights violations, mainly economic and social rights, but also civil and political rights.

In this essay I will introduce the Knowledge Argument. I will also state and explain Premise 1 and Premise 2, and why the respective premise is plausible. Next, I will state and explain the Conclusion and why it is implied by the premises. I will then identify and explain what the strongest objection to the Knowledge Argument is as well as justify the objection. I will evaluate the argument, stating that the objection fails to scrutinize Premise 2 of the Knowledge Argument, and explain my overall evaluation of the Knowledge Argument.