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. Yet
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
November 29‚ 2012 Singer VS. Kant Duty can be defined in numerous ways but what is difficult to know is what our moral obligations are? Immanuel Kant and Peter Singer have attempted to find a more simple‚ rational‚ and supreme rule for what our duty is. Singer makes the distinction between charity and duty. He attempts to show that we‚ in affluent countries such as the United States‚ have a moral obligation to give far more than we actually do in international aid for famine relief‚ disaster
Premium Morality Ethics Immanuel Kant
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
Reference. Taylor‚ A. (2008). Examined Life: Peter Singer on our obligation to alleviate suffering [video file]. Retrieved fromhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVViICWs4dM Content. Peter Singer‚ discusses applied ethics in regard to poverty and affluence‚ animal rights and the radical nature of applied ethics. He challenges the viewers on what is moral and ethical behaviour in society as a whole in regards to money and spending‚ how we treat other beings and that we have a moral responsibility
Premium Ethics Business ethics
expressed beliefs‚ hence making his position somewhat illogical and not as convincing. For instance‚ Singer supposes that "the basic principle of equality does not require equal or identical treatment; it requires equal consideration." Later he follows this idea by asserting that "equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and different rights." Naturally‚ my question to Singer would be‚ what is the use of hypothetically applying "equal consideration" towards all species‚
Premium Human Mammal
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 have
Premium Poverty Ethics Wealth
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
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 Peter Singer’s “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”‚ Singer claims that the rich taste of people with money is starving children around the world. He also believes that if human beings have it to give‚ why don’t we give more to the people who have less. So‚ according to Singer‚ a possible solution to world poverty is for Americans to donate all extra income‚ which is not necessary for everyday living‚ to organizations that provide aid to other poor areas of the world. If more people donated
Premium Utilitarianism Ethics Donation