Comparing Peter Singer's Famine, Affluence And Morality

Peter Singer’s Argument It’s getting harder to have a good time. Peter Singer has argued in Practical Ethics (1993) that you are morally deficient if you eat meat, or if you fail to give a good bit of your income. Peter Singer is one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century and this has to do with his ideas on poverty, animal rights, abortions and euthanasia. Singer’s most important argument is about aid from wealthy countries to poorer ones and therefore is concentrating on his views on poverty and generally, global justice. In Peter Singer’s Famine, Affluence, and Morality, he makes the claim that we ought to give up any surplus money we might have and send it to places like Bengal to prevent people from suffering or dying. However, is this really something we are obligated to do? Singer relies on two important yet controversial

In another word, human right is an important issue not only to the state or nation level, but equally to the global level. First, the author took a stand to defend cosmopolitan values and principles overall and in more specific to defend the cosmopolitan theory. Second, he wants to put the three major challengers political theories, realism, nationalism, and society of state tradition under the assessment in order to generate more reflections and thoughts through different way of thinking about the ethical issue in the globe. In addition, as a Universalist, he is enthusiastic to collaborate with those challengers just in order to identify any invalid arguments from their perspective to generate more of alternative