My Outlook on Peter Singer’s Article: “Famine‚ Affluence‚ and Morality” Amanda Ponshock PHI 208 Ethics and Moral Reasoning Instructor: Rachel Howell August 05‚ 2013 In his Peter Singer’s article‚ “Famine‚ Affluence and Morality”‚ he speaks of how he looks at ways one might think about charity and famine relief. Not everyone has accepted his general idea of how a person should act in these situations. I myself only agree with his views at a certain level. I believe that everyone should help
Premium Morality Ethics Judith Jarvis Thomson
In his work called “Famine‚ Affluence‚ and Morality” Peter Singer raises the theme of morality in the modern fast-changing world by addressing socio-economic problems of East Bengal. According to Singer’s main argument‚ there is no justification to richer nations for not helping the countries such as Bangladesh. Generally‚ I agree with the statement provided. It is well-known that dying from famine is bad‚ wherever you live and with whatever social‚ economic and political problems you are facing
Premium Economics International trade Globalization
Adam Erickson Singer’s Sticky Situation Peter Singer thinks we are too selfish with our money. In “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”‚ he proposes a solution to poverty in other countries. Singer believes that money that might otherwise be used for luxury goods should be donated to charities that help save lives in poorer countries. He believes that this decision increase overall happiness more than the purchase of a luxury good‚ like new shoes‚ would. While Singer’s argument raises an
Premium Ethics Poverty Morality
PETA‚ created a form of social movement to help protect the rights of animals‚ as well as views and philosophy of Peter Singer who proclaims animals should be “liberated”. The mistreatment of animals by humans have brought worldwide attention and disgust. Neglect and starvation towards animals have been seen as immoral and considered as selfish behaviors by humans. In the views of Singer “where the interests of animals and humans conflict‚ the special properties of being human such as rationality‚
Premium Animal rights Animal testing Animal welfare
“Animal Liberation” Singer compares the past acts of liberation to animal liberation and how they are not equal. Peter Singer compares women’s rights and black rights to animal rights. Some in which most people think have no comparison at all. Singer expresses how people may not think highly of animal rights because they are not humans. Singer expressed how other sociologist and psychologist view this to be the same way. I mean why not? We test most human things on animals. Singer introduces betham’s
Premium Animal rights Tom Regan Speciesism
Mind and Machine August 20‚ 2012 In Peter Singer’s article “Famine‚ Affluence‚ and Morality” there are a few items that require further discussion. Peter Singer critiques our ordinary ways of thinking and in spite‚ very few people have accepted his conclusions. I will discuss Peter Singer’s goal and his presented argument in relation to this issue. In return‚ I will also mention the three counter-arguments to his position and the responses made by Singer. It is important to define Singer’s concept
Premium Wealth Donation Famine, Affluence, and Morality
Many people have been searching for a solution to combat poverty; one person‚ Peter Singer‚ believes his argument for prosperous people to donate whatever money they are spending on luxuries would give much needed aid to people lacking food and medicine. While having prosperous people donate their money to organizations would help provide necessities to people around the world‚ Singer fails to realize that asking people to donate all of their extra money is not as simple as it sounds. Adopting
Premium Poverty United States Marketing
In his article on famine‚ affluence‚ and morality‚ morally Peter Singer states that people who live in rich countries are morally obligated to ease the burden of famine and overpopulation for poorer countries. Singer states that rich countries can alleviate unnecessary suffering and death in poor countries by giving famine relief‚ and at the cost of a “morally insignificant” lessening of standard of living for the rich country. Singer also notes that this giving of famine relief should not only occur
Premium
The controversial Ashley treatment to stop the growth of disabled children raised a lot of questions back in 2012. A good number of patients already implemented the treatment before it became public. Following this‚ Peter Singer wrote an article to criticize the legitimacy of the treatment. His essay‚ “The ’unnatural’ Ashley treatment can be right for profoundly disabled children‚” was meant to criticize the integrity of the treatment. His particular concern was the feelings of the children towards
Premium Disability Medicine Law
equality in his paper ‘All Animals are Equal’ deserves to be taken more seriously than it often is. What I try to do is identify Singer’s essential argument and then defend it against some objections I have come across. The ‘irrelevance argument’ Singer begins by assuming that the ‘principle of equality’ or ‘principle of equal consideration of interests’ is a basic moral principle. The principle says ‘treat all people as equals’‚ meaning ‘give equal consideration to the interests of all people’‚
Free Human Morality