The Argument Against Singer

You would think that based on what I have heard from my peers that they are very uncomfortable with the Peter Singers ideas on donating all money beyond what they need to charity. Although they did think that it was a good idea, they didn’t necessarily believe that it was a moral decision. Of the arguments that I heard against Singer, and I did hear many, I don’t think that they are created equal. I’ll mention three in detail and some justifications that I heard that aren’t as relevant.

First, Zach takes a view of freedom, that’s to say that he believes that it’s up to the person to choose to do it. I get it; no one likes being told what to do. I also like the idea of person freedom. Notwithstanding, although I understand his point I still
Some call this idea post-traumatic growth. Simply put, as the famous philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche put it, “That which does not kill us, makes us stronger.” However, I’ll admit that if Singer is referring only to the suffering that doesn’t make people better then I must agree with his idea. Additionally, as mentioned before, people can end up appreciating their lot in life to a greater degree after hard times. The second part of my argument is that happiness might not deserve the highest priority. I am under the impression that there could be alternative ways to think about it, from Aristotle’s view of greatness or Nietzsche’s view of mastery. I have always questioned the concept of why happiness is the most important. Is it because it’s the most pursued? But this would lead to a naturalistic fallacy. Who says it’s valid and what makes them right? I’ll admit, I’m not saying that there isn’t a universal answer, maybe there is. I just can’t escape the thought that it’s just our emotions and pursuit of pleasure that is clouding our judgment and leading towards putting happiness on a pedestal when it might be that doing difficult things is what