Recommended: Peter singer moral resposibility
Boyer.) I feel like that is what is wrong with America today the farther we get away from our original morals and values the more criminal acts we see on an everyday basis. I think it is a great idea for wealthier individuals to give to charities and to have mercy toward families that are poor, but I don’t feel like the government has the right to tell someone that they are obligated to give. With my personal religious values I feel you should give but you should not announce it with trumpets (Mathew 6:2) so I feel like if the government had a hand in your personal decisions you would be announcing it.
By providing a specific number, $200, Singer demonstrates how simple and reasonable it is to save a child in poverty. Additionally, he repeats, “to save a child’s life,” which demonstrates exactly what a $200 donation could do for a child in poverty. As an example, Singer references a credible philosopher, Peter Unger, and acknowledges that “by his calculation, $200 in donations would help a sickly 2-year-old transform into a healthy 6-year-old.” Next, he establishes, “if you were to give up dining out just for one month, you would easily save that amount.” Singer emphasizes this to show the reader how simple it is to save $200, and, more importantly, save the life of a helpless child.
The final chapter, chapter 21, of Russ Shafer-Landau’s book, The Fundamentals of Ethics, emphasis is placed on the fact that moral objectivity is not always completely universal but does not mean the idea of moral objectivism has to be rejected. Moral objectivism states that moral standards should be universal but there are some circumstances and exceptions to this claim. Shafer-Landau presents eleven arguments in chapter 21 that some consider challenges to the universality principle of moral objectivity. Not only will moral objectivism be examined in this paper but also another philosophical view known as moral skepticism will be discussed. In addition to the arguments present by Shafter-Landau’s book this paper will include an analysis from
Peter Singer argues that prosperous people should donate their excess money to the overseas aid groups. When saying this, he believes Americans should stop spending their money on luxuries such as a TV, a computer, a car, and videogames. Instead of spending money on items such as that, he thought we should start sending money to those who are starving in other countries and need our help. There are pros and cons to Singer’s argument and both can be greatly supported.
The Life You Can Save by Peter Singer is a book explaining that our current response to world poverty is not only lacking, but ethically weak. He argues that we need to change our views of what is involved in living a moral life. Throughout the book, Peter proposes ways to save money to donate and then giving it to reliable charities and also, he offers a seven-point plan that mixes personal philanthropy, local activism, and political awareness to help us play our part in bringing about change. In response to this book, some people have taken Singer’s advice and started to follow his plan towards helping end world poverty, while others have criticized him and exclaimed that it is not his place to tell people what to do. I myself agree with
Yes, I agree with Peter singers argument on duty to render aid to others to an extent because it is the right thing to do for example take the drowning child scenario into consideration. The importance of saving the life of the child far outweighs the risks it doesn't necessarily need to even be a child when you see someone in need of help and you are able to help you ought to help them. Also the booze cruise scenario when everybody is off drinking,partying, and having a good time upon asking for their help they say they're to busy drinking even though saving the lives of the 20 naval officers is what they ought to do because it outweighs drinking instead you ought to try and save as many lives as you can. The parts I don't agree with Singer are his fair share view which says that if others aren’t doing enough you are obligated to do more than your fair share and when he says give till it hurts at all times because it is required of you that is a bit extreme and necessarily isn't true because for example in the drowning child argument if you're unable to help perhaps because you're a paraplegic then it isn't required of you.
People have their own problems and struggles to deal with. People could be a dollar richer if they didn’t donate. Also, why do charities exist?
Money: the root of most social problems and one of the few matters that almost everyone has an opinion on. Peter Singer’s “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” a newspaper article, is no exception. Singer argues that one should donate all unnecessary money to the less fortunate because of the morality of the situation. However, though the goal is noble, his commentary is very ineffective due to its condescending tone, lack of hard facts, and overall extremism. The piece is written by Peter Singer, an Australian professor of bioethics at Princeton University.
There can be no doubt that people should be morally free to live their own lives and pursue and develop their own interests, to a certain degree at the very least. This necessitates then that a person is morally permitted to dedicate one’s time, energy, and money to activities that don’t directly have an impact on famine relief or similar worthy causes. For example, it could frequently happen and has happened whereby certain pursuits and recreations have beneficial and favourable outcomes and consequences that could not have been foreseen. My argument lies with the issue that if people are not free to follow their intellectual interests when it is not obvious what positive impact they might have, or whether they would have any positive repercussions at all, humanity in general could be worse off than we actually are. This is tied to Singer’s argument if people are obligated to do as much as they possibly can, to aid famine relief, they would have to give up many of their own special projects and interests in order to do so.
Although Walter eventually does the morally correct thing he still has bad morals. Walter does the right thing by standing up to Lindner. When Lindner actually arrives and Walter is about to disgrace himself and the black community by begging Lindner for the money he can’t do it. Instead he says, “We don’t want to make no trouble for nobody or fight no causes, and we will try to be good neighbors.
In David Barno’s , “A New Moral Compact,” he stresses about our countries current military situation, which is all-volunteer. Barno has also served time in the military himself as a lieutenant general. He claims that the countries current dependence on the all-volunteer military, allows us to rush into war without thinking about the consequences first. Barno proposes the idea, “that every use of military force over 60 days would automatically trigger an annual draft lottery to call up 10,000 men and women” (p.20).This solution is useful but it is not useful enough because it targets sympathy from the people while he needs to target the president because the president can initiate a war without consent of the people or Congress.
In this article entitled "Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem" from “obedience of authority”, the German social psychologist, psychoanalyst, sociologist, humanistic philosopher, and democratic socialist “Erich Seligmann Fromm” argues that the possibility of mankind destroying itself through obedience is more common than what most would believe (Fromm 259). It obviously clear that obedience and disobedience nowadays are ones of the hottest topics that have their own social consequences. While Obedience is the practical acceptance of the authority and the will of God, disobedience is a cause of repletion and distrust of god. In this article, “Fromm” insists that disobedience is necessary and is a must since it can be evident throughout
Morality is a constant negotiation between self and society in what appears to morally justified. Nothing can be truly morally justified for all, but if everyone follows their hearts into what they feel is right, then there has to be some good to come out in the
• Ethical Responsibilities Even though economical and legal responsibilities exemplify about fairness and justice, ethical responsibilities cover those activities and practices that are expected or prohibited by members of society even though they are not codified in law. Ethical responsibilities represent those norms, standards or expectations that reflect a jest of what employees, consumers and shareholders regard as just, fair or in keeping the protection or respect of stakeholders’ moral rights. They are important to perform in a manner consistent with expectations of societal and ethical norms. The firms should recognize and respect the ethical moral norms adopted by society from time to time.
Objective knowledge is when a person is not influenced by emotions or personal prejudices . Different cultures have different beliefs and points of view. What is right in one culture might be wrong in another culture. No moral can be considered right or wrong because morality is subject to everyone’s cultural perspective . Since people around the world grow up in different environments, it is almost impossible to agree on the same thing.
