The debate on when it is appropriate to killing anything has been dissected by many, however a correct conclusion can never be made. In Singers, Practical Ethics, chapter 1-4, he dissects the word “human being” into two definitions. Then he compares the two definitions in past occurrences and in analogies, in which he addresses the controversial topic of, the differences in killing a human and a person. His final position is incorrect and this essay will explain to as why his premises and conclusion is wrong and how to improve it.
In Singers, Practical Ethics, chapter 1, he explains that using the term human being in this argument can mean two different things. The first is using human being when referring to a member of the species Homo sapiens. The second is a human who shows “truly human qualities” as in someone who is “self-awareness, self-control, a sense of the future, a sense of the past, the capacity to relate to others, concern for others, communication and curiosity” therefore calling it a person. Having both definitions clarified, he goes on to give analogies for each definition.
In chapter 2, he begins with the first definition, a member of the species Homo sapiens. Singer goes in depth to describe past events where
…show more content…
If you die instantaneously, whether you have any desires for the future makes no difference to the amount of pleasure or pain you experience. Thus, for the hedonistic utilitarian, the status of ‘person’ is not directly relevant to the wrongness of killing.” He means that hedonistic utilitarianism gives no direct impact due to the fact that when a person being killed, their wants or desires for the future are left incomplete. Their pain or happiness are left being redundant because that person is dead therefore hedonistic utilitarianism is not relation to killing as a