Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Peter singers view of morality
Peter singer on morality
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Peter singers view of morality
Peter singer on morality
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
However, the author is discredited because of his ethics and controversial personal views from the past. This article first appeared in The New York Times, which is targeted to an upscale readers three times more likely to have a postgraduate degree and twice as likely to make more than $100,000 per year. The author, Peter Singer, is an Australian born ethical philosopher with controversial views such as stating that infants with a handicap should be euthanized but is strongly against the death penalty. American
September 1st, 1939. The Germans have just begun their invasion on Poland sparking the start of the treacherous second World War. Leader of the Nazis, Adolf Hitler, specifically targeted Poland because they fit the description of an opposition. Hitler believed his course of action was morally correct because he wanted to regain what he had lost. In order to do that, however, Hitler needed someone to blame, someone to shoulder all the negative emotion created.
In Singer’s “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” he argues the importance of donation to poor people, which could mean the difference between life and death for children in need. He gives an example for Bob, who has an opportunity to save a child’s life, but he could lose his worthy car. He makes a comparison between people who are capable to donate money to save children lives and people who have no chance to help or donate under certain situation such as Bob. He also encourages people who are in the middle class to donate at a minimum of 200$; furthermore, he thinks that people should donate more like 200.000$ when they consider the level of sacrifice that they would demand of Bob’s situation. He gives some estimates for the amount of donations that people should give to overseas.
According to the United Nations, a child dies of hunger every ten seconds. Likewise, millions of people live in poverty and do not know when they will eat again. While the typical American throws away leftover food, children are dying across the world from starvation. To put this into perspective: By the time you have started reading, a child has died of hunger. But who is to blame?
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.
In this paper, I will focus on Bonnie Steinbock’s claim on whether or not we should give equal moral consideration to species outside our own species group. I will first determine what moral concern means, according to Peter singer, and explain how he views the human treatment of animals. I will then outline Steinbock’s argument against Singer’s position and explain how her criticism is part of a much broader issue: that is moral concern. I will finally make my argument against Steinbock as well as address any issues she could possibly raise against my argument. Peter Singer believed that all species, whether it be human or non-human, deserve equal consideration of interests and quality of life.
So my issue with Peter Singer's argument is it's infallible to tell someone that they should not be spending money on luxuries, when they themselves are buying tickets to see a movie. I believe in "practice what you preach" and "actions speak louder than words". Which really puts me off about what Singer was trying to communicate. Now I understand his thoughts of trying to challenge people to not be selfish and think inwardly. But in that process, he himself fell prey to his own vices.
While pointing out that it is much easier to ignore an appeal for money to help those you’ll never meet than to consign a child to death, Singer uses his utilitarian philosophy to deflect the argument, stating that “if the upshot of the American’s failure to donate the money is that one more kid dies… then it is, in some sense, just as bad as selling the kid to the organ peddlers.” This argument, however, can only be made while using false dilemmas. Singer also addresses a large criticism of his work, that one can’t decide moral issues by taking opinion polls. The argument to this reiterates how the audience would feel being in these situations. This argument is poor as it does not address how the entire article is based on how everyone feels about this particular subject.
Peter Singer defines a “moral creature” as first being an“intelligent social mammal”, which is then “likely to evolve” to become a moral creature. He says that a moral creature has responses and inhibitions to their actions towards others, has the capacity to reason, and is able to reflect more deliberately and consciously on their choices. Some of the moral issues presented to Singer by the interview were: torturing people, utilitarianism vs. deontology, the origin of morals, normative judgements, racism, sexism, climate change, global poverty, and caring for ourselves and not others. Peter Singer’s view on moral progress is that we have expanded our “circle” more and more as time goes on. He feels this way, because at first, we were only concerned about those we knew during the tribal times, then as time went on and the number of people around us grew, we expanded our moral circle to our nation and to those sharing the same religious faith as us, then in the twentieth century, we officially accepted that we owed the same amount of moral equality to all of those around us.
Caleb Stephens April 15, 2017 Introduction to Philosophy The goal of this paper is to demonstrate that Philippa Foot’s objection, raised to her own argument against utilitarianism, is correct. Her initial thesis is that benevolence, while the foundation of utilitarianism, is an internal end of morality, rather than the ultimate end of morality. The possible objection to this that there must be some overarching reason behind morality, which must imply a form of consequentialism. The response she offers is that there should be some other form of morality, which is a weak argument, as it does not provide an alternate conception of morality itself.
In this paper I will be arguing against Peter Singer’s views on poverty, which he expresses in his paper “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”. Singer argues that all people with wealth surplus to their essential needs are morally obligated to prevent the suffering of those in dire situations. I will argue that you can not hold people morally obligated to prevent the suffering of others, and that people can only be held morally obligated to prevent suffering that they themselves caused. To begin, we will look at Singers beliefs and arguments regarding poverty and the responsibility of people to help those in need. Singer’s first arguments revolves around a girl named Dora, who is a retired schoolteacher, who is barely making a living writing
Philip Manning 12504697 Q) Evaluate Peter Singer’s argument in ‘Famine, Affluence and Morality’. There can be no doubt that Peter Singer’s argument in ‘Famine, Affluence and Morality’ is unrealistic, unfair and not sustainable. Singer’s arguments are valid arguments but not sound. In order to get a clear and balanced view of my arguments which disprove the Singer article, it is first necessary to examine and lay out the main aspects of Singer’s argument in ‘Famine, Affluence and Morality’. My arguments against Singer’s claims shall then be detailed and examined in depth.
Injustices, tragedies, and unfortunate circumstances have plagued humankind for all of existence. Many of these problems have arisen from the society of man, and could not be found in nature. The hatred, selfishness, prejudice, and maliciousness seen in so many injustices man created unnecessarily, as well as all the suffering it causes does not need to exist. If an individual witnesses a crime or injustice occurring, it is their responsibility to defend the weak and fight for whatever is morally right, even at the cost of themselves.
Rather, Singer’s weaker version is more plausible, that one should take necessary action where we are able to prevent bad states of affairs without sacrificing morally significant (Singer, 1972). It is clear then that moral autonomy to pursue one’s own interests is something that can constitute moral significance. An individual is morally free not to devote themselves full time to prevent famine. It is important to make a distinction between the freedom to pursue one’s own interests and the freedom of wasting resources on excessive luxuries. Singer concedes there is no justification for the purchasing of stylish new clothes as any benefit to this purchase would be sparingly little compares to the benefit it would make for the poor in donating that money (Singer, 1972).
Animals Rights In society, animals are being killed for food, fur, and experiments. This raises the question is it ethical to kill other animals for our own person gain? As human, we live in a society where it is humane to kill other animals when it comes to survival, clothing and to help cure diseases. But this is not really answering the question why is this okay?