Peter Singer's Argument On Moral Obligation

480 Words1 Page
bulb-icon

Recommended: Poverty solution project proposals

I both agree and disagree with Peter Singer. While I believe that we do have a moral obligation to help others, I also believe we have a moral obligation to leave other people alone and let them get on with their lives. We have it pretty good in the developed world. Medical care is widely available and we have a sustainable source of income is available for a large portion of our country, but at the same time we have damaged much of the less developed portions of the world. We seem to think that we belong to a gated community and that we have the right to judge those who want to join our nation. We limit immigration with pointless checkpoints and block those from our neighboring countries from joining our nation with frivolous borders. This leads me to what I see as a flaw in Peter Singer's …show more content…

In this day and age there is always a race to be better than another person, To have more money more power more influence on the world around you. We want to be better than the next guy, but what are we supposed to do when we achieve that fabled state, where we have achieved all our goals and have enough money amased to live comfortably and many other families to live comfortably as well? Should we retire live off the interest of our amst wellth or do something good with the power that we now hold? I do believe that we have the obligation to help people in our world but no in the way Peter Singer puts it we should let people live their lives make choices to help themselves but we should make it easier for them to help themselves. Financial aid from global powers is a good step but until we have the freedom to join a nation without going through checkpoints and bureaucracy the problem will still exist. Money can't fix the problem but better diplomatic relations and the freedom to do and be who and what you want would be a good

Show More
Related

  • Peter Singer Moral Obligation

    1127 Words  | 3 Pages

    All different ethical theories can look at the same problem and come to different conclusions. Even philosopher’s such as Singer and Arthur understand and view ethical values differently. Peter Singer who uses the utilitarian theory believes that wealthy people should give to the degree that the wealthy person now someone in need themselves. John Arthur believes those in need or those suffering are only entitled to the help of the wealthy person if that person agrees to help, and that the property rights of the wealthy person declines the amount that Singer believes people should. People should help other people. I believe all people deserve the right to receive assistance and to not help those people would be morally wrong. However, I do not believe that the help that we are morally obligated to give should come at the cost of our own well-being.

    Read More

  • Strong Response to Peter Singer’s: The Singer Solution to World Poverty

    1160 Words  | 3 Pages

    Living in a third world country such as Jamaica gives you a firsthand experience on how much poverty has consumed the majority of the world. You’re driving along and you see a boy begging on the street asking a man in a mustang for some spare change. Should anyone be surprised if the man rolls up his window and ignore the poor boy? Would you have given the boy any of the spare change in the side of your car door?

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Peter Singer's Famine, Affluence And Morality

    1021 Words  | 3 Pages

    Based off our agreement of this assumption, Singer moves on to the second part of his argument to say that if we are fortunate enough to have our basic needs for life fulfilled, then it is our moral obligation to help those who are not as fortunate as long as helping does not result in something happening that is equally as “bad,” which he defines as anything morally wrong or not promoting of moral goodness (231). For the third part of his argument, Singer points out that since it is now within our power to help people from all over the world, we have a moral obligation to give them our aid regardless of their distance from us (232). Because of our modern technologies, we

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Peter Singer's Famine, Affluence, And Welfare

    732 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Limit of our Moral Duty in regards to Famine Relief. In the article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer argues that our conceptions of moral belief need to change. Specifically, he argues that giving famine relief is not optional but a moral duty and failing to contribute money is immoral. As Singer puts it, “The way people in affluent countries react. cannot be justified; indeed the whole way we look at moral issues-our moral conceptual scheme-needs to be altered and with it, the way of life that has come to be taken for granted in our society”(135).

    Read More

  • Peter Singer's Argument in Famine, Affluence and Morality

    1493 Words  | 3 Pages

    This paper explores Peter Singer’s argument, in Famine, Affluence, and Morality, that we have morally required obligations to those in need. The explanation of his argument and conclusion, if accepted, would dictate changes to our lifestyle as well as our conceptions of duty and charity, and would be particularly demanding of the affluent. In response to the central case presented by Singer, John Kekes offers his version, which he labels the and points out some objections. Revisions of the principle provide some response to the objections, but raise additional problems. Yet, in the end, the revisions provide support for Singer’s basic argument that, in some way, we ought to help those in need.

    Read More

  • Peter Singer's Paper 'Famine, Affluence and Morality'

    1498 Words  | 3 Pages

    Singer continues by stating “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, Pg.231). Like his first statement, this one is easy to swallow. No moral code, save for maybe ethical egoism or nihilism, would attempt to refute either of his premises. His final conclusion is that if it is in our power to stop suffering and death from lack of the essentials, without sacrificing anything of comparable moral worth, we are morally obligated to do so. This essentially removes the current definition of charity, making giving money to famine relief, not a supererogatory act, but a moral duty of all people who have the ability to do so.

    Read More

  • Immigration Helps America

    1203 Words  | 3 Pages

    Immigration to a developed country has a lot of problem associated with it. In particular, United States has not been spared of these problems according to many experts (Massey et al. 53). On my view, though there is a positive inclination towards immigration that people tend to overlook. Firstly, there are the cultural differences; many people migrating to this country are from different localities. The ethnical perspective of these people is nearly incompatible. This incompatibility leads to exchange of the aspects of the two cultures hence enrichment of the untied states culture. This is a positive impact to of immigration. If the new people were just visiting and going back to where they came from, then such exchange could not have happened, therefore, after all immigration is not only a negative aspect in ...

    Read More

  • Morality of Giving

    1069 Words  | 3 Pages

    How much money is one morally obligated to give to relief overseas? Many In people would say that although it is a good thing to do, one is not obligated to give anything. Other people would say that if a person has more than he needs, then he should donate a portion of what he has. Peter Singer, however, proposes a radically different view. His essay, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” focuses on the Bengal crisis in 1971 and claims that one is morally obligated to give as much as possible. His thesis supports the idea that “We ought to give until we reach the level of marginal utility – that is, the level at which, by giving more, I would cause as much suffering to myself or my dependents as I would relieve by my gift” (399). He says that one's obligation to give to people in need half-way around the world is just as strong as the obligation to give to one's neighbor in need. Even more than that, he says that one should keep giving until, by giving more, you would be in a worse position than the people one means to help. Singer's claim is so different than people's typical idea of morality that is it is easy to quickly dismiss it as being absurd. Saying that one should provide monetary relief to the point that you are in as bad a position as those receiving your aid seems to go against common sense. However, when the evidence he presents is considered, it is impossible not to wonder if he might be right.

    Read More

  • Persuasive Essay On Nobel Peace By Elie Wiesel

    690 Words  | 2 Pages

    Is it wrong of the public to stop what they are doing and rush to aid those in need, or is it more sensible to think of oneself for the sake of self preservation? Nobel Peace Prize-winning author and survivor of WWII, Elie Wiesel, stated in his acceptance speech, “When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever men or women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must-at that moment- become the center of the universe.” For centuries that have come and gone, the human race has always been at the center of conflict. Whether it be the Hundred Years’ war, the American Revolution, or WWII, the human race have, and always will, fight for what they believe to be true ;however, those

    Read More

  • Interdependence Of American Countries

    377 Words  | 1 Pages

    I believe that the world is not governed by interdependence. Countries will not aid each other unless there is an interest. There are many examples, such as Rwanda, Syria and Israel, where countries have been in need, but received no aid because other countries seemingly have had no reason to help them. We have companies who only look at the profit margins and hold no regard for working conditions.

    Read More

  • Argument Essay On Bystander Apathy

    1102 Words  | 3 Pages

    Where this argument ends; however, is on the question of should people help in a crisis? Whereas, some are convinced that we shouldn’t have the law because it society responsibility to help others. Others maintain that we should have the law because it will bring kindness to our world. We should care about our society, enforcing laws regarding good samaritans because our society is more violent as of late and has caused the loss of human life. Imagine if our society has this type of law and how different our society would be from what we see today. People need to walk in someone else’s shoes in order to feel what the other person is feeling when no one comes to help them and when they are hurt. Once they get out of that person’s shoes they will know if they were in that position they wish someone would help them. People should care in having this law because when we give to others sets a positive and powerful tone for the day. Giving induces high levels of fulfilment and happiness that radiates an attractiveness others are drawn

    Read More

  • Why I Choose Becoming A Police Officer As A Career

    1266 Words  | 3 Pages

    What should we do in life? That always seems to be the question. Life is not guaranteed to be easy, never turning out the exact way that we want it to. A lot of people work hard to achieve their dreams of making a massive amount of money and having more than a seven percent return on their 401k plan. Truth is, life is not about the amount of money that we have saved up, it is about what we do to make a difference and how we will make our lifetime worth it. Something that people should set into place is a plan for their future. A plan that would help not only directs their path in life, but the paths of those around them too.

    Read More

  • We Must Help People in Poverty

    863 Words  | 2 Pages

    ...w the government misspends their income inefficiently. I believe we should all interfere somehow by supporting these needy people, as almost 800 million people suffer from starvation and poverty in the entire world (Oracle Foundation). They cannot find food or water to eat and drink, and they cannot afford to pay for anyone. They pass the point of becoming anorexic, and move on to more complex stages that require serious medical care, which they fail to bear the expense of. Experiencing starvation is a challenging phase for them, as they feel a constant pain in their stomach that they cannot simply get over with by stepping into their kitchen, if they even have one. To conclude, it is necessary to sustain the needy, especially whenever they are in times of desperation, and we should be willing to provide donations as a means to promote the stability of their lives.

    Read More

  • Moral obligation to help

    1924 Words  | 4 Pages

    Morality can be based on consciousness and various perspectives but morals, regardless of distinct cultures, have a core fundamental of comprehending what is right and wrong. By this, we are held to an obligation to assist those in need. This means that we should feel obligated to do whatever it is within our might to aid situations that need assistance.

    Read More

  • Utilitarianism In John Singer's Peter Singer Solution To World Poverty

    1828 Words  | 4 Pages

    Peter Singer practices utilitarianism, he believes the consequence of an action matters more than the reason behind the action. Singer is trying to convince his audience to donate their money to end world poverty. He believes it is moral to give as much money as the person can give, allowing them to purchase just enough for them to live on, and this will be the right action to take. Singer is aiming toward the United States to contribute more to charity. Singer does not consider specific aspects that do not support his argument and causes his argument to not list specific aspects of his belief. Singer’s argument is not a good argument because he does not consider the ramifications of people donating their surplus of money would do to the economy; is it our duty to feed the poor; and that our moral intuitions are not consequentialist at all when it concerns what our rescue duties entail.

    Read More

More about Peter Singer's Argument On Moral Obligation

Open Document