The global poor have been an issue that the world has faced for generations and with the gap between the rich and poor always expanding, we have to ask ourselves the question of “what should we do about it?” and “should we even do something about it?”. In this essay, I will be arguing the moral implications of consequentialism and why Onora O’Neill’s non-consequential view on the subject is more plausible than Peter Singer’s consequential view. I will explain what differentiates Singer and O’Neill’s views and where both their views come together.
Consequentialism refers to the idea that what is morally good or bad is all based on the consequences of one’s actions. It is derived from the Theory of Right Action which is a part of Utilitarianism (Sinnott-Armstrong). Peter Singer is a notable Utilitarian philosopher and a strong supporter of the idea of Consequentialism. When it comes to the issue of the global poor, his consequentialist view is that people should help the poor. He believes that “if it is within one’s ability to prevent something bad from occurring, and in the process, not sacrifice something of comparable moral good, then one is bound to do it”( "O'Neill vs. Singer: Utilitarian Famine." ). He believes that everyone has this obligation and responsibility because everyone is of equal stature. So when there is someone in the world that is suffering, whether it be of pain or financial predicaments, and you have the ability to aid that person to get to a better state of living without sacrificing your own well-being, then it should be expected that you do. An example of this would be if you were walking down the street and you see a homeless man. If you have money to spare and that wouldn’t be a sacrifice, then...
... middle of paper ...
... actually hurt someone/do wrong.
This is why I believe that Onora O’Neill’s non-consequentialist view would be more plausible. I’m not against the focus on consequences because thinking about those are definitely important. But all consequences happen because of an action and so it would be much more important to focus on the actions we are doing and making sure they are done with good intentions of making everyone’s life better and improving the conditions we all live in.
Works Cited
• Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter. "Consequentialism." Stanford University. Stanford University, 20 May 2003. Web. 24 Apr. 2014. .
• "O'Neill vs. Singer: Utilitarian Famine." O'Neill vs. Singer: Utilitarian Famine. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2014. .
Moral obligation in Peter Singer’s Famine, Affluence, and Morality in contrast to John Arthur’s World Hunger and Moral Obligation: The case against Singer
Consequentialism is a term used by the philosophers to simplify what is right and what is wrong. Consequentialist ethical theory suggests that right and wrong are the consequences of our actions. It is only the consequences that determine whether our actions are right or wrong. Standard consequentialism is a form of consequentialism that is discussed the most. It states that “the morally right action for an agent to perform is the one that has the best consequences or that results in the most good.” It means that an action is morally correct if it has little to no negative consequences, or the one that has the most positive results.
In other words, Singer believes that unless you can find something wrong with the following argument, you will have to drastically change your lifestyle and how you spend your money. Although some people might believe that his conclusion is too radical, Singer insists that it is the logical result of his argument. In sum, his view is that all affluent people should give much more to famine relief. While I agree with Singer’s argument in principle, I have a problem with his conclusion. In my view, the conclusion that Singer espouses is underdeveloped.
Singer presents his argument specifically in terms of famine relief and, although it has broader applicability, the discussion mostly falls under this specific topic. Thus, he conforms his argument around aspects relevant to famine and/or poverty when laying out his three core premises.
Peter Singer's paper “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”has made a drastic impact in modern applied ethics. The simple nature of the paper makes for an easy read, yet the point clearly set out by Singer is at ends with the targeted audiences' popular beliefs. Although most will object to Singer's idea by throwing away a basic principle of most moral theories, I wish to deny Singer's solution by showing that the ability to apply Singer's conclusion is not reasonable and does not address the problem's core.
In order to understand why O’Neill’s position is superior to Singer’s position on famine relief, I will present information on both sides. O’Neill gives a Kantian, duty-based explanation, that focuses on people 's intentions. One of the central claims of Kantian ethics is that one must never treat a person, either oneself or another, as mere
Singer, Peter. 1986. Famine, Affluence, and Morality. In Introduction to Philosophy: Classical and Contemporary Readings, ed. John Perry and Michael Bratman: 573-580. New York: Oxford University Press. Originally published 1972.
Theories of global distributive justice address the following sorts of questions. Should we feel morally concerned about the large gap between the developing countries and the developed countries? What duty do us citizens have to provide assistance to the global poor? And what scale should we take the duties to?
ABSTRACT: Recently, unrestrained consequentialism has been defended against the charge that it leads to unacceptable trade-offs by showing a trade-off accepted by many of us is not justified by any of the usual nonconsequenlist arguments. The particular trade-off involves raising the speed limit on the Interstate Highway System. As a society, we seemingly accept a trade-off of lives for convenience. This defense of consequentialism may be a tu quoque, but it does challenge nonconsequentialists to adequately justify a multitude of social decisions. Work by the deontologist Frances Kamm, conjoined with a perspective deployed by several economists on the relation between social costs and lives lost, is relevant. It provides a starting point by justifying decisions which involve trading lives only for other lives. But the perspective also recognizes that using resources in excess of some figure (perhaps as low as $7.5 million) to save a life causes us to forego other live-saving activities, thus causing a net loss of life. Setting a speed limit as low as 35 miles per hour might indeed save some lives, but the loss of productivity due to the increased time spent in travel would cost an even greater number of lives. Therefore, many trade-offs do not simply involve trading lives for some lesser value (e.g., convenience), but are justified as allowing some to die in order to save a greater number.
Famine, Affluence, and Morality; Singer suggested, “we should prevent bad occurrences unless, to do so, we had to sacrifice something morally significant” (C&M, 827). However, different philosophers and writers have criticized his view and the general idea to help the poor.
Miller, Richard W.. "Beneficence, Duty And Distance." Philosophy Public Affairs 32, no. 4 (2004): 357-383.
When you first enter the world, it’s easy for one to develop black and white vision. I’m not talking about actual eyesight. By black and white vision, I mean that people have a simple view of the world where one action is completely right and one action is completely wrong. I was one of those people during my early years. I thought I had a clear picture of who I was and what right from wrong was. My change in views is attributed to the first time I experienced an identity crisis and the ideas of altruism and consequentialism that followed.
Consequentialism is an ethical theory that evaluates the consequences of a person’s action to determine if their actions are right or wrong (Slote 34). According to the theory, a morally right act is one that has more good outcomes than bad ones. In this ethical theory, the end justifies the means; hence, it argues that people should first determine the good and bad consequences of actions before they do them. After determining the total outcomes, it is important to investigate whether the total good consequences are more. If the good ones outweigh the bad ones, then that action is morally right, but if it is the reverse, then the action is morally wrong.
In the excerpt “Rich and Poor” from Peter Singer’s book “Practical Ethics,” Singer critiques how he portrays the way we respond to both absolute poverty and absolute affluence. Before coming to this class, I have always believed that donating or giving something of your own to help someone else is a moral decision. After reading Peter Singer’s argument that we are obligated to assist extreme poverty, I remain with the same beliefs I previously had. I will argue that Singer’s argument is not convincing. I will demonstrate that there are important differences between being obligated to save a small child from drowning (in his Shallow Pond Example) and being obligated to assist absolute poverty. These differences restrict his argument by analogy for the obligation to assist in the case of absolute poverty.
“Famine, Affluence, and Morality” is a piece written by a moral philosopher, Peter Singer, who places a challenge to our traditional notions of charitable giving. The essay argues in favour of donating, and of the moral obligation imposed upon us to contribute and help the global poor with humanitarian purposes. By critically assessing Singer’s writing, this reflection paper will study the main arguments advocated for from his work, as well as possible objections.