Phil 111

715 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Concept of moral responsibility

In my paper I would argue for Peter Singers’ argument that given that we have a moral duty to save someone from drowning in a shallow pond, we have moral duty to donate our money, when it is of no morally significant cost to us to do so, to save the lives of faraway strangers in need. There are a lot of reasons that revolve around this argument such as it only makes sense to help people in need out of morality and try to bring greater good. Also, the fact that there is no significant cost to us makes it even more feasible.
The argument, if broken down, includes a lot of points that should be explained. Firstly donating money holds true for only those who would save someone from drowning in a shallow pond and think that it is morally right. For the ones that do think so, saving someone from drowning is almost same as donating money and helping faraway people in need in many ways. Firstly, there is betterment being brought from our actions out of morality. Also, in both cases there is slight inconvenience but it is insignificant as compared to the outcome that is being brought. The other very important thing that needs to be highlighted in the argument is that we need to help other by incurring no significant cost to us. The argument in no sense propagates that we should give up our necessities and comforts to help those in need because in the end the objective is to bring greater good of all. The cost here being talked about is the cost over wasteful consumption such as expensive clothing, cars etc. that is morally useless and can be diverted towards a much better way.
Let me start explaining my argument and try to convince with a pretty well off family of 4 in the USA keeping 2012’s median income as the standard measure (US Go...

... middle of paper ...

...heir own way are helping the society. Also, taxes are very domestic in nature and thus wouldn’t be able to help people who are in need and are maybe in international countries that plays role as the faraway aspect of the argument.
The liberal side of me does understand that when money is involved people do tend to get a bit rigid due to obvious reasons, Its hard earned money and is ‘technically’ of utmost importance to our survival in today’s world. But the central idea is to help faraway strangers in need with no morally significant cost. We as members of the society shouldn’t forget our responsibilities and duties and should thus do what is maximally efficacious. Since there isn’t a lot that donating to someone in need takes from us, we should definitely do it.

Sources:
US Gov., . . N.p., Web. 13 Mar. 2014. .

Show More
Related

  • Analysis Of Peter Singer And Onora O Neill's Position On Famine Relief

    1016 Words  | 3 Pages

    Bentham, an act utilitarian, created a measurement called hedonic calculus that calculates if an action is wrong or right by determining factors like intensity and duration of pleasure. Singer strains on the importance of the act by the number of people affected from it. He believes that every human being is equal. Therefore, geographical and emotional closeness is irrelevant to moral responsibilities. He states that “death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad” and that if you disagree “read no further” because it would be hard to convince anyone otherwise (P. 231 Singer). He argues that if we can prevent bad things from occurring without “sacrificing anything of moral importance” it’s our moral obligation to act on it (P.231 Singer). What is not clear is as to how much we should give, as we should keep in mind that not everyone in the world gives aid to famine relief so we must take that into account. Singer then tries to make it easier on us by stating that instead of negotiating something of comparable ethical significance in his second premise, it can be of any moral significance. He also believes that if one is to ignore a duty to aid others then he or she is no different than an individual who acts wrong. This is because he believes that it is our moral responsibility to do good deeds and people dying is wrong

    Read More

  • Analysis Of The Singer Solution To World Poverty

    1276 Words  | 3 Pages

    “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” by Peter Singer is a persuasive article trying to influence people to donate money to save children’s lives. Peter Singer stated, “Evolutionary psychologists tell us that human nature just isn’t sufficiently altruistic to make it plausible that many people will sacrifice so much for strangers… they would be wrong to draw moral conclusions to that fact”. First, Singer tells a story about a retired school teacher who doesn’t have extra money. Dora, the school teacher, is given a chance to make a thousand dollars by walking a homeless child to a house, in which she was given the address for. She then walks the child to the house, and then later Dora’s neighbors tell her that the child was probably killed

    Read More

  • Andrew Carnegie And Peter Singer

    1346 Words  | 3 Pages

    Singer’s belief that everyone should give away all excess wealth to eliminate as much suffering as possible conflicts with the idea of competition and, therefore, reduces the productivity of human civilization. Peter Singer, a professor of moral philosophy, stated in his essay “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” that it is everyone’s duty to participate in philanthropy since it is morally wrong to not help someone who is suffering. Singer thoroughly explained the details of the “duty” of philanthropy: “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.” If this philosophy is followed, and the poor beneficiary experienced the same level of comfort as the wealthy benefactor, then what incentive would the beneficiary have for

    Read More

  • Reevaluating Charity: A Radical Approach

    870 Words  | 2 Pages

    In his essay, Singer states that "if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it." However, if individuals in first world countries were to continuously donate rather than spending that money on luxuries, the majority of their income would be spent on alleviating a global issue and their savings would ultimately diminish down to the level of global poverty until they would be unable to give any more.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Peter Singer's Famine, Affluence And Morality

    1021 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Peter Singer's Argument in Famine, Affluence and Morality

    1493 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...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.

    Read More

  • Difference Between Jan Narveson Vs Peter Singer

    1135 Words  | 3 Pages

    In this piece he makes it clear that nearly everyone has the ability to make a difference is others lives. dings”. Narveson, unlike Singer, thinks that our voluntary choices about giving are morally permissible, whether we choose to give or not. If you choose to sacrifice your luxuries for charity, then that’s fine (morally speaking), as long as you haven’t neglected your obligations with your family. In “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, the author Peter Singer argues that there is no reason why Americans don’t donate money to the needy when they can afford countless of luxury that are not essential to the preservation of their lives and health. In the case that you choose not to sacrifice for charity, then that’s fine too. As per Narveson 's position it’s up to us to help or feeding the hungry and whatever we decide is correct too. What Narveson does argue is that it would be wrong for others to force us to give, say, by taxing us and giving our money to charity. This claim does not contradict anything that Singer says in “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”. Nowhere in that article does Singer say that people should be forced to give. But for a utilitarian, such as Singer, there is no reason in principle why it would be wrong to force people to give. If the policy of forcing people to give maximizes utility, then it is ipso facto the right policy. On the other hand Narveson makes a distinction between

    Read More

  • Peter Singer Moral Obligation

    1127 Words  | 3 Pages

    All different ethical theories can look at the same problem and come to different conclusions. Even philosopher’s such as Singer and Arthur understand and view ethical values differently. Peter Singer who uses the utilitarian theory believes that wealthy people should give to the degree that the wealthy person now someone in need themselves. John Arthur believes those in need or those suffering are only entitled to the help of the wealthy person if that person agrees to help, and that the property rights of the wealthy person declines the amount that Singer believes people should. People should help other people. I believe all people deserve the right to receive assistance and to not help those people would be morally wrong. However, I do not believe that the help that we are morally obligated to give should come at the cost of our own well-being.

    Read More

  • Peter Singer's Paper 'Famine, Affluence and Morality'

    1498 Words  | 3 Pages

    Singer continues by stating “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it”(Singer, Pg.231). Like his first statement, this one is easy to swallow. No moral code, save for maybe ethical egoism or nihilism, would attempt to refute either of his premises. His final conclusion is that if it is in our power to stop suffering and death from lack of the essentials, without sacrificing anything of comparable moral worth, we are morally obligated to do so. This essentially removes the current definition of charity, making giving money to famine relief, not a supererogatory act, but a moral duty of all people who have the ability to do so.

    Read More

  • Morality of Giving

    1069 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Beggars, Homeless and the Professional Panhandling Plague

    975 Words  | 2 Pages

    Lou, A. “Should I give money to homeless beggars, especially children?”. intentious. 18 Nov. 2013. Web.

    Read More

  • Extreme Poverty In Peter Singer's 'Rich And Poor'

    1164 Words  | 3 Pages

    He begins his argument with the fact that it is easier to avoid killing someone than to fail to save someone life. To begin his discussion of whether we have an obligation to assist, Singer formally outlines his argument into three premises. The first premise states, “if we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable significance, we ought to do it” (200). The second premise briefly states that absolute poverty is bad, and the third premise states there is some preventable absolute poverty without sacrificing anything of significance. Therefore, Singer concludes we ought to prevent some absolute poverty. To illustrate his principle, Singer presents a hypothetical example of if you were walking somewhere and saw a small child drowning in a shallow pond. You should be obligated to help save the child’s life, even if it means you will get your jeans dirty. In Singer’s terms, your jeans are not morally significant compared to the child losing their life; therefore, concluding you should save the

    Read More

  • Famine Relief

    1822 Words  | 4 Pages

    In this paper, I will argue against two articles which were written against Singer’s view, and against helping the poor countries in general. I will argue against John Arthur’s article Famine Relief and the Ideal Moral Code (1974 ) ,and Garrett Hardin’s article Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor ( 1976); I will show that both articles are exaggerating the negative consequences of aiding the poor, as well as building them on false assumptions. Both Arthur and Hardin are promoting the self-interest without considering the rights of others, and without considering that giving for famine relief means giving life to many children.

    Read More

  • Utilitarianism In John Singer's Peter Singer Solution To World Poverty

    1828 Words  | 4 Pages

    Peter Singer practices utilitarianism, he believes the consequence of an action matters more than the reason behind the action. Singer is trying to convince his audience to donate their money to end world poverty. He believes it is moral to give as much money as the person can give, allowing them to purchase just enough for them to live on, and this will be the right action to take. Singer is aiming toward the United States to contribute more to charity. Singer does not consider specific aspects that do not support his argument and causes his argument to not list specific aspects of his belief. Singer’s argument is not a good argument because he does not consider the ramifications of people donating their surplus of money would do to the economy; is it our duty to feed the poor; and that our moral intuitions are not consequentialist at all when it concerns what our rescue duties entail.

    Read More

  • Egoism Essay

    1488 Words  | 3 Pages

    What is the value of a life? Is it how long you live, what you accomplish during your lifetime, or things you acquire? The ethics and moral reasoning behind this simple question does wealth equate to happiness? This has been asked many times and the debate from both sides has great points and emphasis, but I would like to talk about those who seem to be thrown on the back burner the needy. Now if you were to hear the word needy many different categories come to mind homeless, unemployed, sick, and the underprivileged. Each sector is different in terms of the needs and what is asked to help them: however they stand together in regards to some type of assistance to help them attain and maintain simple everyday tasks in their lives.

    Read More

More about Phil 111

Open Document