Peter Singer- Famine‚ Affluence‚ and Morality Pamela Buitimea PHI 208 April 1‚ 2013 Instructor Galen Johnson Peter Singer- Famine‚ Affluence‚ and Morality Who is Peter Singer? Peter Singer was a man with many beliefs and thoughts about what he feels and what he thinks things ought to be. The argument "Famine‚ Affluence‚ and Morality" by Peter Singer suggests that “the agent which is praiseworthy for giving to charity but not blameworthy for not giving to charity is wrong‚ and the agent which
Premium
Singer starts out with a metaphor that centers on a woman in South America. The woman sells a child to an adoption agency thinking that the child has a better future there‚ but she soon finds out that the child will die because of her (Singer 60). She decides against returning the money and claiming the child again because she just used the money to purchase a new entertainment system (Singer 60). Singer uses this story for two reasons‚ to tug at those
Premium Philippines Pollution Poverty
In the article‚ “Animal Liberation” the author Peter Singer discusses the issue of physical and emotional suffering that is being endured by animals. The basis and summary of “Animal liberation” is that we are constantly inflicting pain and misery upon animals and it is morally incorrect. The criteria for fairness is‚ if a living organism has the capacity for suffering then they should be treated the same way psychologically‚ mentally and emotionally. If the answer to the capacity of suffering is
Premium Animal rights Human Animal testing
that money? According to Peter Singer‚ you don’t really have any choice because you’re “morally obligated” to donate far more resources to famine relief and similar causes than what you currently think is enough‚ but without sacrificing anything of equivalent moral importance. In this paper I will analyze this argument and try to show that Singer’s conclusions are correct‚ yet they are not quite as correct as he believes they are. To do so‚ I will try to show that Singer is wrong to think that we
Premium Poverty Ethics Wealth
Analysis of “Famine‚ Affluence‚ and Morality” Shannon Carl Michelle Loudermilk PHI 200: 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
Premium Wealth Donation Famine, Affluence, and Morality
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
1. In this paper I will argue that Singer is wrong to claim that human suffering and animal suffering should be given equal consideration. He claims that human animals and non-human animals with vertebrae experience pain and suffering in the same way. (41) 2. In “Animal Liberation”‚ Peter Singer argues that human suffering and animal suffering should be given equal consideration. He believes that a lot of our modern practices are speciesist‚ and that they hold our best interest above all else. The
Premium Suffering Mammal Animal rights
Professor T. Edwards The Singer Solution to World Poverty In the Singer solution‚ Peter Singer talks about how it is wrong to live in luxury and watch someone else struggle for the basic things to survive. He argues that instead of going out spending money on necessities‚ help someone. He also tries to prove a point where as if you have something valuable to you‚ would you risk savings? Or would you help an innocent person in need? With this study I agree with Singer‚ because in reality no necessity
Free English-language films
self enjoyment: concert tickets‚ iPhones‚ Jordans‚ Pizza ? If you answered “yes” to any of the above‚ then Peter Singer‚ utilitarian moral philosopher‚ would equate your actions to letting “a runaway train hurtle towards an unsuspecting child” (Singer 4). Though the prospect of not donating our extra funds to charities sounds selfish and egocentric. We are not monsters. In a sense‚ Singer is correct. Currently‚ every person who lives in an affluent country has the ability to donate to charity.
Premium United States Poverty Ethics
Peter Singer asserts that utilitarianism implies a moral obligation to be a vegetarian. Utilitarianism holds that the right actions‚ or what we ought to do‚ are those actions that are expected to produce the best overall consequences‚ provide maximum utility‚ happiness or pleasure and minimize pain and suffering. Utilitarians look at the probable consequences of choices and choose their actions based on whatever they believe will produce the most utility or pleasure. Singer claims that if one is
Premium Utilitarianism Ethics Hedonism