In 1630, the Massachusetts Bay Company set sail to the New World in hope of reforming the Church of England. While crossing the Atlantic, John Winthrop, the puritan leader of the great migration, delivered perhaps the most famous sermon aboard the Arbella, entitled “A Model of Christian Charity.” Winthrop’s sermon gave hope to puritan immigrants to reform the Church of England and set an example for future immigrants. The Puritan’s was a goal to get rid of the offensive features that Catholicism left behind when the Protestant Reformation took place. Under Puritanism, there was a constant strain to devote your life to God and your neighbors. Unlike the old England, they wanted to prove that New England was a community of love and individual worship to God. Therefore, they created a covenant with God and would live their lives according to the covenant. Because of the covenant, Puritans tried to abide by God’s law and got rid of anything that opposed their way of life. Between 1630 and the 18th century, the Puritans tried to create a new society in New England by creating a covenant with God and living your life according to God’s rule, but in the end failed to reform the Church of England. By the mid 1630’s, threats to the Puritans such as Roger Williams, Anne Hutchinson, and Thomas Hooker were being banned from the Puritan community for their divergent beliefs. 20 years later, another problem arose with the children of church members and if they were to be granted full membership to the church. Because of these children, a Halfway Covenant was developed to make them “halfway” church members. And even more of a threat to the Puritan society was their notion that they were failing God, because of the belief that witches existed in 1692. In 1534, King Henry VIII formally instigated the English Reformation. He therefore passed the Act of Supremacy, which outlawed the Catholic Church and made him “the only supreme head on earth of the Church of England” (Roark, 68). Puritans were looking for a more Protestant church and received what they wanted. Along with it, came the King’s total control over the Church. This is what the Puritans didn’t want. Puritans believed that ordinary Christians, not a church hierarchy, should control religious life. They wanted a distinct line between government and the Church of England. Puritans also wanted to eliminate the customs of Catholic worship and instead focus on an individual’s relationship with God developed through Bible study, prayer, and introspection (Roark, 68).
In the 1700’s the Puritans left England for the fear of being persecuted. They moved to America for religious freedom. The Puritans lived from God’s laws. They did not depend as much on material things, and they had a simpler and conservative life. More than a hundred years later, the Puritan’s belief toward their church started to fade away. Some Puritans were not able to recognize their religion any longer, they felt that their congregations had grown too self-satisfied. They left their congregations, and their devotion to God gradually faded away. To rekindle the fervor that the early Puritans had, Jonathan Edwards and other Puritan ministers led a religious revival through New England. Edwards preached intense sermons that awakened his congregation to an awareness of their sins. With Edwards’ sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” he persuades the Puritans to convert back to Puritanism, by utilizing rhetorical strategies such as, imagery, loaded diction, and a threatening and fearful tone.
While residing in England, the Puritans and faithful Catholics faced prosecution, which led to their immigration to the New World. Most left England to avoid further harassment. Many groups and parishes applied for charters to America and, led by faithful ministers, the Pilgrims and Puritans made the long voyage to North America. Their religion became a unique element in the New England colonies by 1700. Before landing, the groups settled on agreements, signing laws and compacts to ensure a community effort towards survival when they came to shore, settling in New England. Their strong sense of community and faith in God led them to develop a hardworking society by year 1700, which Documents A and D express through the explanation of how the Pilgrims and Puritans plan to develop...
Based off our agreement of this assumption, Singer moves on to the second part of his argument to say that if we are fortunate enough to have our basic needs for life fulfilled, then it is our moral obligation to help those who are not as fortunate as long as helping does not result in something happening that is equally as “bad,” which he defines as anything morally wrong or not promoting of moral goodness (231). For the third part of his argument, Singer points out that since it is now within our power to help people from all over the world, we have a moral obligation to give them our aid regardless of their distance from us (232). Because of our modern technologies, we
In the article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer argues that our conceptions on moral belief need to change. Specifically, He argues that giving to famine relief is not optional but a moral duty and failing to contribute money is immoral. As Singer puts it, “The way people in affluent countries react ... cannot be justified; indeed the whole way we look at moral issues-our moral conceptual scheme-needs to be altered and with it, the way of life that has come to be taken for granted in our society”(135). In other words Singer believes that unless you can find something wrong with the following argument you will have to drastically change your lifestyle and how you spend your money. Although some people might believe that his conclusion is too radical, Singer insists that it is the logical result of his argument. In sum, his view is that all affluent people should give much more to famine relief.
...themselves. By adding further conditions or exceptions we could address specific objections and create more narrowly defined obligations. Further modifications of PP’ would not generally eliminate obligations, but it would allow choices to be made. In particular, for the affluent, doing nothing remains off limits so they would still be required to do what they can to alleviate suffering in places where they are in agreement that help is warranted. This derivation from the original argument plausibly supports the basic argument made by Singer that we ought to do everything in our power to help those in need so long as we need not sacrifice anything significant.
The church and Christian beliefs had a very large impact on the Puritan religion and lifestyle. According to discovery education, “Church was the cornerstone of the mainly Puritan society of the 17th century.”( Douglas 4). Puritan laws were intensively rigid and people in society were expected to follow a moral strict code. And because of Puritans and their strict moral codes, any act that was considered to go against this code was considered a sin and deserved to be punished. In Puritan theology, God h...
How much money is one morally obligated to give to relief overseas? Many In people would say that although it is a good thing to do, one is not obligated to give anything. Other people would say that if a person has more than he needs, then he should donate a portion of what he has. Peter Singer, however, proposes a radically different view. His essay, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” focuses on the Bengal crisis in 1971 and claims that one is morally obligated to give as much as possible. His thesis supports the idea that “We ought to give until we reach the level of marginal utility – that is, the level at which, by giving more, I would cause as much suffering to myself or my dependents as I would relieve by my gift” (399). He says that one's obligation to give to people in need half-way around the world is just as strong as the obligation to give to one's neighbor in need. Even more than that, he says that one should keep giving until, by giving more, you would be in a worse position than the people one means to help. Singer's claim is so different than people's typical idea of morality that is it is easy to quickly dismiss it as being absurd. Saying that one should provide monetary relief to the point that you are in as bad a position as those receiving your aid seems to go against common sense. However, when the evidence he presents is considered, it is impossible not to wonder if he might be right.
...y from the Church of England. Puritanism was weakened at its core because of this strict and finicky hierarchy within its church. It drove people away, leaving it in great need of loyal members. “In effect, strict religious purity was sacrificed somewhat to the cause of wider religious participation” (Kennedy, 73).
In this premise he gives the example of if he should feel less obliged to save the drowning child if on looking around and he sees other people that are no further away but are also doing nothing to save the child. This example points out the absurdity of the view that numbers lessen obligation. He also points out that the view of: “if everyone in circumstances like mine gave $5 to the Bengal Relief Fund, there would be enough to provide food, shelter, and medical care for the refugees; there is no reason why I should give more than anyone else in the same circumstances as I am; therefore I have no obligation to give more than $5.” (233) This is argument appears sound until we notice that the premise is highly hypothetical because not everyone will give that five dollars that is necessary for the relief in Bengal, and you cannot assume that your five dollars will be enough to provide the relief needed. “Therefore by giving more than $5 I will prevent more suffering than I would if I gave just $5.” (233) Singer also points out another problem with this hypothetical situation. That it assumes that everyone is sending money simultaneously, and are also unexpected. But because those giving later will know how much money is needed and will only contribute the amount that is necessary to reach this
Richard Miller finds Singer’s conclusion unrealistically demanding. He approaches the problem differently and claims that we should instead accept the Principle of Sympathy. According to Miller’s Principle, what morality directly demands is a sufficiently strong concern towards neediness. One’s disposition to help the needy is “sufficiently strong” if expressing greater concern would “impose a significant risk of worsening one’s life” . The Principle of Sympathy differs from Singer’s Principle of Sacrifice mainly in two ways. First, the Principle of Sympathy is a moral code that concerns more with an agent’s disposition to give rather than the amount of money he end...
There are many ways of interpreting Shakespeare's The Tempest. A Post-Colonialist critic, such as Stephen Greenblatt, will look at the influence of historical and political implications of colonialism on the text. Along these lines, a Reader Response critic, such as Paul Yachnin, will look specifically at Shakespeare's audience and their concerns at the time in which the play was written. Very different from these approaches, a Psychological critic, such as Bernard Paris, will completely ignore what was in the author's and audience's minds, and look at the psyche of the main character in the play. Regardless of which critical approach is used to analyze the play, all interpretations should be considered objectively for they all provide a great deal of insight for studying the text. However, I believe that it is imperative to keep in mind that the story offered in The Tempest is told from the point of view of the main character, Prospero. This has a definite impact on the interpretations and their validity.
In the excerpt “Rich and Poor” from Peter Singer’s book “Practical Ethics,” Singer critiques how he portrays the way we respond to both absolute poverty and absolute affluence. Before coming to this class, I have always believed that donating or giving something of your own to help someone else is a moral decision. After reading Peter Singer’s argument that we are obligated to assist extreme poverty, I remain with the same beliefs I previously had. I will argue that Singer’s argument is not convincing. I will demonstrate that there are important differences between being obligated to save a small child from drowning (in his Shallow Pond Example) and being obligated to assist absolute poverty. These differences restrict his argument by analogy for the obligation to assist in the case of absolute poverty.
Throughout the piece, Singer highlights that ‘we ought to give money away and it is wrong not to do so.’ This statement is not merely showing that it will be commendable to give money, but failing to give will be morally wrong. This obligatory nature of his argument urges people to donate the money that would otherwise be spent on luxuries. Singer’s profound conclusion has been supported by an analogy: What would you do if you see a small child drowning? There can be little doubt that, despite the inconvenience of getting our clothes muddy and shoes wet, people will attempt to save the child’s life. From this example, Singer builds on to argue that there is no moral difference between letting the child drown and
In 2007 the worst food crisis since 1974 broke out. The number of hungry people continued to rise to 1.09 billion in 2009. Most experts traced the start of the crisis to the rising of food prices. There are several causes to the rising of food prices. The increasing demand from the middle class in developing countries is one reason. One of the first causes to explain the food price increase was the growing demand for meat in China a...
...asonable dynamics and supports them with such enthusiasm. The last few paragraphs of Singer’s proposal started to steer me into a different direction in understanding his drastic approach to solve world hunger. Although Singer points out that there will always be another child in need and I can understand donating the $200, I couldn’t comprehend why all Americans should donate even a larger sum of money to these organizations. Singer couldn’t give a thorough explanation as to why we should be giving all of our hard earned money to organizations when a generous donation has already occurred. A student in class brought up an interesting question: “ What if we donate too much?” My question is, is there such a thing as donating too much money? The only way one can come to a resolution in such a matter would be to start giving and then we can worry about when to stop.