Peter Singer Essays

Peter Singer is a well-known Australian moral philosopher whose work in applied ethics for example abortion, animal liberation and infanticide has led to controversy. Singer’s willingness to work through the controversial topics made him became so famous around the world. When Singer’s paper about abortion and infanticide was publicised, Singer has proven to be a popular target especially among the pro-life activists. Singer exclaimed that membership of Homo-Sapiens is not sufficient to confer a

Peter Singer’s article, “Speciesism and the Equality of Animals,” claims that human beings should apply the principle of equal consideration of interests to nonhuman beings as well as human beings, and Singer asserts that the capacity for suffering is an important characteristic that gives a human or nonhuman being the right to equal consideration. Simply put, human beings should treat other human beings and nonhuman beings equally. Peter Singer, the Australian philosopher, defines speciesism “as

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

The less fortunate are often overlooked because of their distance in the world. Contrary to this popular belief, philosopher Peter Singer believes that distance is both irrelevant and insignificant when helping others. Throughout this essay, I will argue in favor of Singer’s arguments. I believe Singer is accurate when he claims distance is irrelevant when human lives are at stake. Privileged people should always help the less fortunate as long as they are not sacrificing anything of comparable moral

Peter Singer the man who wrote the famous proposal "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" talks about donating money to charity rather than spending it on luxuries to save lives. Singer explains this by stating examples of people put in a situation to sacrifice a beloved item for a child 's life. The first example talks about Dora a retired schoolteacher writing letters for illiterate people. When suddenly she gets an opportunity to obtain 1,000 dollars and all she has to do is bring a kid to a house

Peter Singer, a utilitarian philosopher argues that non-human species should be treated equally to human species. Singer mentions that anyone who doesn’t believe in equal rights for animals is called a speciesist. Singer also goes into detail about how human speciesists believe that the pain felt by pigs or mice is not equal to the pain experienced by humans. In this essay, I would like to defend Singer’s argument, killing animals is not justifiable. Therefore, we should stop consuming animals by

Part A - Explain Singers basic argument that we are obligated to give to aid agencies Peter Singer uses a utilitarian ethic insisting that our money can do more good being spent on aid abroad than being spent on our own luxuries. On this basis, claims that one may spend £100 pounds on a night out and attain pleasure from this; however, that one night could have instead funded four school children with a school meal for a whole year if it had instead been donated to oxfam. Singer also goes on to

Peter Singer is considered a utilitarian which is one who believes that an action is right that it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the main concern. Singer states in his piece, “All Animal Are Equal”, speciesism is defined as a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of other species. There is a lot of small objection towards Singers thought process, but I think the issue lies in

decision made within one's rights could still be callous or cowardly, meaning that it would be ethically problematic and potentially devastating for the person making it, whatever the status of the fetus and the reproductive rights of women. 4. Peter

Utilitarianism is an effort to provide an answer to the practical question. Velasquez (2006) posited “Utilitarianism is a general term for any view that holds that actions and policies should be evaluated on the basis of the benefits and costs they will impose on society”. This belief goes all the way back to Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill who we consider to be the founders of the philosophical concept of traditional utilitarianism. These two were of the belief that once our actions were right

Utilitarianism, in its true meaning, is an ethical theory that holds that the best action is the one that maximizes overall happiness or pleasure and minimizes overall pain or suffering. It’s based on the idea that morality should be based on the greatest good for the greatest number of people, and that this morality should be judged based on its consequences, not on the intentions of the person committing the acts. This theory has been influential in many aspects of society and is why I will be

In his article, The Singer Solution, Peter Singer argues that citizens of affluent nations are failing to do their moral duty, which is to donate far more to charity than they actually do. The article starts by referring to the Brazilian film Central Station where a miserable retired schoolteacher named Dora is faced with a choice. She could pocket an impressive $1000, but she must first convince a homeless 9 year old to follow her to a certain location where she is told he would be adopted. After

amount money to buy food to feed themselves and their loved one. The problem is that several people are trapped in the severe poverty and they are becoming weaker and weaker each day. Peter Singer wrote “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” and it is a short story about world poverty and his goal to stop the poverty. Singer strongly believes that no one should be able to starve himself or herself because of lack of money and the world should be able to help each other by donating the money, food, clothes

Kersey-Russell Plan World poverty has been a problem for thousands of years and still is a challenge we face today, slowly growing and deepening into our society. This is the main topic that Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics, points out in his article “ The Singer Solution to World Poverty.” Singer stated that the answer was simple; whatever money people spend on things you want, not the things you need, should be given away. Taking people's money that is used for luxuries and giving it to

In the focus of the concept of self-esteem, which is one of the oldest concepts in the field of psychology due to being first used by William James in 1890. Self-esteem is defined as how worthy one feels, also known as self-worth, with the etymology of the term esteem from the French language estimer and Latin aestimare meaning ‘to estimate’ or ‘appraise’. James described the idea with a focus on the connection between the self-worth and the success of the individual in achieving their expected outcome

Hedonism and the desire-satisfaction theory of welfare are typically seen as archrivals in the contest over identifying what makes one’s life better. It is surprising, then, that the most plausible form of hedonism is desire satisfactionism. The hedonism theory focuses on pleasure/happiness while the desire-satisfaction theory elucidates the relevance of fulfilling our desires. Pleasure, in some points of view is the subjective satisfaction of desire. I will explain the similarities and the differences

Altruism, is defined as ‘a philosophy and social movement which applies evidence and reason to working out the most effective ways to improve the world’ (Singer, 2015). Since for the utilitarian only the best is good enough and hence there is no room for doing less good than you possibly can. If one fails to do what is best in terms of total well-being, one is simply doing it wrong (Bykvist, 2009). In Jacques

Utilitarianism is the theory that we should always try to bring about as much happiness as possible. It is hard to argue against the value of being happy, but critics are quick to point out that we value many other things as well. (Sir Bernard Williams, Rachels, 2010, p. 40) For me, this subject can be quite a tough one, and I will be honest, it is seriously causing me to think. The best way I can think of is this. I think of tv shows like the Walking Dead, and certain movies, where a person is

1. Utilitarianism states that the right action brings about the greatest good over evil (Mill). Similarly, Consequentialism judges the rightness or wrongness of an action based on the action’s consequences. The driving force for Utilitarianism focuses on maximizing rationality. Maximizing rationality states that it is rational to bring about the maximum amount of something when it is good and irrational not to (Mill). Utilitarianism focuses heavily on doing anything possible to bring about a greater

Utilitarianism ethics falls in the under the consequentialism approach which determines an action is wrong or right by its consequences. Utilitarianism is an ethics principle which advocates that actions are either good or bad by the results they produce. If the action brings pleasure to the greatest number of people then it is good, if the result causes pain and grief, it is bad. Therefore, the end justifies the means – if the act will in due course bring happiness and pleasure, “the greater