Peter Singer's Thought Experiments By Judith Jarvis Thomson

398 Words1 Page

Peter Singer's dissent from Judith Jarvis Thomson's claims in her thought experiments involving Henry Fonda and the violinist explains the tension between different ethical frameworks and moral intuitions. Singer's dissent stems from his devotion to utilitarian principles, which prioritize the maximisation of overall well-being as the primary criterion for ethical decision-making. In Thomson's Henry Fonda thought experiment, she argues that there is no moral obligation for Fonda to fly across the country to help a dying person. Thomson's reasoning is grounded in the principle of bodily autonomy, which asserts that individuals have the right to control their own bodies and are not obligated to sacrifice their bodily integrity to sustain the …show more content…

This is due to Singer's utilitarian perspective, which emphasises the importance of maximising overall well-being. He claims that Fonda's action would result in a significant increase in well-being for the dying person, outweighing any inconvenience or cost to Fonda. From this perspective, individuals have a moral obligation to take actions that produce the greatest overall good, even if they are not directly responsible for the situation. Likewise, in Thomson's violinist thought experiment, she argues that there is no obligation for the kidnapped person to remain connected to the violinist, even though disconnecting would result in the violinist's death. Which, as stated before, Thomson's reasoning is grounded in the principle of bodily autonomy. Once again, in contrast, Singer states that the kidnapped person ought to remain connected to the violinist. His dissent is based on his utilitarian perspective, which prioritises the preservation of life as a fundamental value. Thus, sacrificing some autonomy to sustain the life of the violinist would result in a net increase in well-being, as it would prevent the loss of a valuable human

Open Document