An analysis of peter singers famine affluence and morality

Write My Essay Posted in Essays have to make an outline in a separate page just explaining these steps briefly and in the paper i have to go in more details about those steps.

He argued that choosing not to send life-saving money to starving people on the other side of the earth is the moral equivalent of neglecting to save drowning children because we prefer not to muddy our shoes. He also proposes that you have dressed in your best clothing perhaps and wearing an expensive suit on your way to meet someone important.

Here is the thrust of Singer's argument: He proposes we give ten percent of our earnings to help prevent famine and suffering around the world. Personal response His book emphasizes mainly on the need to help others. This attractively packaged, concise edition collects the original article, two of Singer's more recent popular writings on our obligations to others around the world, and a new introduction by Singer that discusses his current thinking.

You are on an important telephone call, but by interrupting your call, and yelling out to the child, you can prevent an otherwise inevitable pedestrian automobile collision. Ending the killing of animals would cause countless humans to starve and would negate the belief in "comparable moral importance.

This is to a point when it harms the richer nations more than benefiting the developing nations. Nine million people fled to India due to the movement of independence.

They were not inactive due to their lack of knowledge about what was occurring as the issue was highly publicised through the media.

Although by dismissing those with these thoughts and having them not complete the article would not be of much help. He makes it clear that his aim is for the reader to accept his argument. Singer feels that he is morally bond and calls others to do the same so as to elevate suffering and to prevent major harm that may happen to people.

He makes basic statements like his first premise that the suffering of people due to what we would consider our basic needs and something we ought to have a right to like food and shelter and that a lack of such be something bad to stimulate us to agree with him.

This is with the effort to deal with the harms, and poverty eradication to a level. Corbett's reply to Singer[ edit ] Bob Corbett [3] replies to Singer's second point on the Kantian grounds that "ought" implies "can": It also means choosing to do bad by also not being involved in helping people suffering from lack of medical care, shelter and food, which are vital for the survival of human beings.

What inspired and motivated him to do so as a graduate student was due to the refugees fleeing from East Pakistan.

Famine, Affluence, and Morality

This way of looking at the matter cannot be justified. His proposal of giving ten percent of our earnings to help those less fortunate than us is an idea that most can agree with. He supports this argument giving a hypothetical scenario of a child who very clearly seems to be drowning in a shallow pond.

He mentions how you notice that there are no adults or any parent or guardian around to oversee and mind the child. In conclusion, Singer provides a sound argument and supports it with reasonable evidence and sufficient explanations.

This is a rather good method of writing as it cancels out confusion based on not being able to understand and interpret his ideas fully. There is need to alleviate this poverty that cause too much suffering to human beings because lack of sacrificing to help the poor will not be of moral importance.

Singer seems to be saying that if we all contributed the same amount there would be no need for certain people to give more than others.

He does not explain the moral difference between the two, while Singer on the other hand examines the moral difference between the two scenarios and argues that suffering is still occurring whether near or far, death as a possibility is still present.Famine, Affluence, and Morality Peter Singer Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol.

1, No. 3. (Spring, ), pp. Stable URL: henrydreher.com?sici. Evaluate Peter Singer’s argument in ‘Famine, Affluence and Morality’. Peter Singer wrote his essay ‘Famine, Affluence and Morality’ in November What inspired and motivated him to do so as a graduate student was due to the refugees fleeing from East Pakistan.

Objections to Singer's "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" (henrydreher.comlosophy) submitted 5 years ago by singerobjections Hi everybody, I am taking an ethics course and we are learning about Singer's piece where he writes about our job as humans to give back to those it need.

Transcript of Famine, Affluence and Morality / Peter Singer Is it a moral obligation to the individual and to society to prevent suffering and death for those who are far from them or it should be the choice of the individual man (the so-called charity).

Famine, Affluence, and Morality Terry Simmons PHI Instructor: Stephen Carter January 28, Famine, Affluence, and Morality Peter Singer opens his argument by introducing the reader to a famine in Bengal setting up his first premise stating “suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad”.

Famine, Affluence and Morality

Peter Singer “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” March 18, October 10, Write My Essay Posted in Essays have to make an outline in a separate page just explaining these steps briefly and in the paper i have to go in more details about those steps.

Download
An analysis of peter singers famine affluence and morality
Rated 4/5 based on 31 review