Morality

To Ought or Not to Ought… That is the Question

Humanity rises from the predominant catalyst of social mores that align with society’s norms. Morality, although a proverbial construct we familiarize with, fails to be defined universally. As with any ethical issue, the distinction between “good” or “bad” has been debated amongst philosophers, theologians, and even within internal consciences. Common-sense morality lacks empiricism compared to science, yet its implications hold equal weight, for a well-defined moral construct gives rise to individual and societal ramifications. Often, it seems unquestionable why certain acts are deemed “bad”. However, these instincts lack universal application, thus morality must be clearly defined. Morality’s framework builds an idyllic state of the world, and it is vital to understand the arguments behind such scruples. Opposing intuitive morality, Singer endorses a position that questions the accepted dichotomy between charity and duty and challenges society’s perceptions by redefining moral obligations. A reconstruction of Singer’s argument leads to the conclusion that donating is obligatory; furthermore, Singer’s position juxtaposed against Mill’s utilitarianism illustrates common themes between the two theorists.

Singer promotes moral obligation of preventing famine by presenting the audience with simple irrefutable initial premises. Singer conceptualizes the essence of ‘good’ and ‘bad’. From the nascence, Singer provides a clear definition: “Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad” (Singer, 231). By contrasting the amount the Australian government donated to Bengal compared to the funding of the Sydney Opera house, Singer highlights the unethical practice ...

... middle of paper ...

...hree premises in which he established his argument on irrefutable claims. The irrefutability of ‘suffering is bad,’ leads to the principle of preventing what is bad without sacrificing moral importance. Using analogies, qualifications, and distinguishing between charity and duty, Singer illustrates that using our money for personal expenses is not of equal moral importance as saving a life. Thus, his conclusion rests on accepting impartiality and making charitable donations as an obligation versus supererogatory. The adoption of impartiality and promotion of total happiness coincides with Mill’s viewpoints, yet the two philosophers neglect intrinsic value and over-demandingness. Yet, objectivity in moral construct stands unattainable. Thus, personal values, justice, and virtues merit the overarching dilemma of what we ought to or not ought to do.

Word Count: 1238