Spring ; pp Singer, P. Cambridge Journal Articles Burgess, D. It does seem like it would be nice to comfort the child, but it doesn't seem like an obligatory moral response.
Historically, though, not every culture would have agreed to meet singer at his starting point, acknowledging the obligation to rescue Singer's child. Singer also acknowledges that while we may feel we have special duties to our fellow citizens etc. He asserts that even when the implications of working full time have been taken into account, such as the unpleasantness of work overload, it still stands that we should give as much as we can.
With awareness that these arguments are born not from unbiased investigation, but rather from self-interest and the need to wiggle my way out of a moral prison, I present 11 arguments against. This objection is expanded on by Murphy in Arneson Due to space restrictions I will not touch on criticisms that Singer makes no distinction between causing someone deliberate harm and causing someone harm by doing nothing see Glover for this argument.
Singer seems to feel like it's totally acceptable to intervene in the most effective way you can.
Even from a utilitarian perspective, what are the ethical implications of this? It is difficult, perhaps impossible, to refute such positions, and so for brevity I will henceforth take this assumption as accepted. Singer suggests that we are obliged to rescue as many of these drowning children as possible.
Is our responsibility to equalize suffering, to eliminate suffering, or to equalize conditions? What if the children who are getting pushed off the bridge are willing participants? Is it possible that a life of hard conditions prepares one for more hard conditions?
They may not be moral equivalents, but the "suffering of the valley girl" is quite real, and might be more intense than that of the starving. What if we raise the stakes again, but continue to leave "the sanctity of life" out of the equation. Under the Cooperative Principle, the agent will be required only to save 10 people and leave to drown as this would be the optimal distribution of the burden.
It would be foolish not to think that it might happen again but it is far from certain. Then he doesn't dismiss it as "absurd", but instead takes that conclusion seriously, and leaves each of us staring at that ethical reality. I suspect that what's happening here is a collision between the commonly held to be sacred values of life and, and the generally non-sacred, or as Singer calls it "morally insignificant", value of shoes.
Arneson adapts the work of Hampton giving the example of Terry, a woman who devotes all her energies to the caring for her husband and children, to the detriment of her own health. Are we obliged to rescue the drowning children? The moral imperative becomes much less clear in this case. Finally I conclude that although Singer defends his argument well, he presents an inaccurate picture of the global situation.
The fact that a person is physically near to us, so that we have personal contact with him, may make it more likely that we shall assist him, but this does not show that we ought to help him rather than another who happens to be further away.
To him, this then precedes the issue that we will have difficulty in drawing the line between conduct that is required and conduct that is good although not required.
London Edited Books Arneson, R. We have been gradually growing our moral circle, and we tend to think this is a good thing 7but the only perspective we have to judge that from is within our own moral framework. This essay examines his main argument before considering some criticisms and evaluating how strong in light of these his case really is.
This could be seen as a shift more towards the position of Pogge and his argument for the need for structural readjustment. This analogy and a related one devised by Unger Singer's example also avoids our complex thoughts on freedom and responsibility by casting a child with no apparent guardian in the victim role.
We can revisit the drowning child analogy and argue against his first and second points that it is more reasonable for a person to be cynical about overseas aid than diving straight in to save a drowning child.Peter Singer, in his piece, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” would argue that we ought to prevent bad things from happening without sacrificing something of equal importance.
Here is the argument Peter Singer presents to us in standard form.
1) Millions of people are suffering from hunger every day. We will write a custom essay. "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" is an essay written by Peter Singer in and published in Philosophy and Public Affairs in It argues that affluent persons are morally obligated to donate far more resources to humanitarian causes than is considered normal in Western cultures.
How Persuasive Is Peter Singer’s Argument For Famine Relief? – Political Science Essay A quick glance at any news, activist, or NGO website will reveal the huge level of global inequalities and problems of poverty that the billion people below the.
In his work Famine, Affluence and Morality, Peter Singer presents an argument that we of the developed world, can and ought to do more for the developing nations to alleviate their poverty.
1 Singer For Famine Relief Every day, more than 25 THOUSAND children die of easily preventable causes: They die by starving to death, or dying of thirst, or from starvation-related illnesses. Philosopher Peter Singer points out. A Response to Famine, Affluence, and Morality at p.
1)2 The purpose of this paper is to analyze Peter Singer's argument. According to Damer's five criteria of a good argument, it would be safe to claim that peter singer has made a good argument.
(Damer at p. 0)3. Though singer's argument is good and persuasive, his paper is not free.Download