Peter Singer's Argument On Suffering

1464 Words6 Pages
The world of today is highly advanced, allowing individuals to lead whatever life they so choose. Some humans, however, are not as fortunate. Billions today do not have the luxury of leading their own lives, for they barely have a biologically functional life at all to lead. Poverty, along with the lack of shelter and proper medical care, affect these unfortunate billions and cause suffering and death on a daily basis. Australian philosopher Peter Singer thereby rouses an argument calling on everyone to donate their excess and material wealth to charities in order to end this global suffering. Singer (1972) makes his argument in four points, and first proposes that “suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad” (p. 231). This statement is a basic thought of Singer’s philosophical background, utilitarianism, specifically urging individuals to prevent suffering and promote pleasure (Mill, 2013, p. 7). Arguably only a small amount of people could criticize…show more content…
As I suggested, Singer might tune his argument to respect human autonomy in arguing for us to donate only as much as is not morally significant in damaging our autonomy rather than our basic biological life. This may do well to make subscribing to his argument more appealing for those who are not utilitarians. Though the argument still misappropriates utilitarianism on a larger scale than intended, Singer must also find a way to create a less demanding argument as well. Regardless, Peter Singer’s argument must be honoured as an important part to modern practical ethics by doing what ethics does best: allowing us to deeply reflect on our modern situation of gluttony, and realize we perhaps do have some duty in one form or another to help the impoverished who desperately need

More about Peter Singer's Argument On Suffering

Open Document