Essay On Peter Singer's Principles

1157 Words5 Pages
Singer’s principle ‘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,’ outlines such high obligations for people of wealthy countries that are too demanding. I do not agree with Peter Singer’s principle. This principle limits my freedom of choice, my freedom to act. It fails to recognize the morals and ethics I value as a person. It requires me to favor those who are physically distant rather than my neighbor; furthermore, the drowning child example does not support his thesis because physical distance affects the amount of obligation I feel to help others. And lastly it rejects other moral concerns we have, that may be of equal importance.
The principle being presented obligates me to act in a certain way; not on occasion, every day. Singer is demanding that in every situation I act as a “moral” human being; anything short of Singer’s expectations do not suffice. The imposition of his moral standard, on my free will and ability to make rational decisions, poses limitations on my freedom to make choices, to learn from them, and to be an independent self-governing body. Every day with the decisions I make I am
…show more content…
This idea of overnight change is quite possibly imposible. Someone can give to charity because they are a CEO of a prominent company and it’s simply a tax write off. Should giving not come from the heart? In my mind what separates the ethically minded people from those who are selfish money hungry individuals is the place in which this giving comes from. In my mind this giving, for personal benefit is overlooked by Singer. If the generosity is not done out of a place of understanding, a place of kindness and goodnes but rather a place of self fulfillment and personal benefit, then the entire premise is
Open Document