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.
He believes all of these things to be true, but does not do it himself. Singer doesn’t want to be the one to start the movement, and doesn’t want to be the only one to do it, but expects his arguments for people to live on just necessities to be a valid one. If Singer cannot lead by example how can he expect anyone to? People work hard in there every day lives to create what they have, and we all have different amounts of money because of this. The people who work extremely hard for what they have may have an abundance of money, for
Thus, one may counter-reply to the aforementioned considerations and challenge again Russell’s simplicity argument. After all, one may wonder if the same criticism advanced against the argument for instinctive beliefs applies to the simplicity argument. That is, maybe we may conceive other simple hypotheses today as well as tomorrow, thereby refusing the common-sense view as the only simple one just in the same way we refuted it as the only instinctive one. Yet, unlike the case of instinctive beliefs, in which we could conceive several intuitive hypotheses at the present time, only one really simple hypothesis can be conceived now. This is because no other hypothesis can ever be as simple as the straightforward common-sense theory.
Each person has their own understanding on moral obligation, and their actions with moral obligation influence society a lot. In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, Peter Singer point out that rich people or nations ought to help the poor one as much as they can. Singer thinks that only in this way, both society and world will become better. I admit that rich people should help poor people to improve their life, however, these supporting should not influence the living quality of rich people, and the correct way for supporting is to encourage poor people to work hard, but not let them rely on others’ money. Singer first points out that” if we can prevent a bad thing happen without sacrificing any comparable moral importance, we ought do it, and instead, we should not promote good thing.” He uses the example that many countries spend a lot on development and only provide limited supporting on poor countries which lack of food and medicine.
Thus, Socrates is not arguing against the situations where injustice is most likely to succeed, but rather where it is least likely to succeed. That is not sufficient to show injustice is weaker than justice. The circumstance that Socrates should actually try to disprove should not presuppose that all members are equal. If there are established hierarchies, chains of command and systems of enforcement, injustice can arise and harmony can remain. In fact, since it would
Peter Singer’s Argument It’s getting harder to have a good time. Peter Singer has argued in Practical Ethics (1993) that you are morally deficient if you eat meat, or if you fail to give a good bit of your income. Peter Singer is one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century and this has to do with his ideas on poverty, animal rights, abortions and euthanasia. Singer’s most important argument is about aid from wealthy countries to poorer ones and therefore is concentrating on his views on poverty and generally, global justice. 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.
In this paper, I will focus on Bonnie Steinbock’s claim on whether or not we should give equal moral consideration to species outside our own species group. I will first determine what moral concern means, according to Peter singer, and explain how he views the human treatment of animals. I will then outline Steinbock’s argument against Singer’s position and explain how her criticism is part of a much broader issue: that is moral concern. I will finally make my argument against Steinbock as well as address any issues she could possibly raise against my argument. Peter Singer believed that all species, whether it be human or non-human, deserve equal consideration of interests and quality of life.
This quote essentially is a blueprint for the entirety of the argument, as it concludes that if an being can experience suffering, it is entitled to rights. The author explains that suffering is a vital element that gives a being the right to be considered equally. If a being is able to experience joy and suffering, it has the ability to develop and have interests. Singer gives an example of a rock vs mouse incident, to prove this claim, “A stone does not have interests because it cannot suffer. Nothing that we can do to it could possibly make any difference to its welfare...A mouse, for example, does have an interest in not being kicked along the road, because it will suffer if it is” (Singer 5).
In Famine, Affluence and Morality, Peter Singer provides us with a moral challenge. He argues 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. By "without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance”. Which means that if there is way that we prevent something bad without losing something similar to that stature, it morally right to do it. I agree with his agreement.
Though Socrates presents a compelling argument, I argue that it is possible for someone to act badly, all the while knowing that what they desire is bad. In order to establish my thesis, I will start by stating and explaining the argument that Socrates presents, I will