The Greatest Good Peter Singer Summary

806 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Animal rights and utilitarianism

1. Even though the book states the public policy does provide any measurements to measure the greatest good, I would have to agree with Peter Singers Modern utilitarianism. It can be very tricky to define what is good within public policy. So when I define the greatest good, I define it as the option that majority of the people want. The role of the government should be to deliver what the people want, although it may be different things. Therefore, what should be delivered is the most popular answer. That is what delivering the greatest good should be. P.144
2. Singer argues that as a society, we must not inflict pain or eat animals to increase social welfare. He also suggests that animals are just as important in society as humans are. Although …show more content…

On page 153 in the textbook, it states the what is considered right in politics if often swayed be self-interest. With that said, the disparities of the rich in the United States are morally justifiable. We live in a capitalist society in which one can work for as much money as one wants, unlike a communist or Marxist society. This not only means that people can get rich but means they can also be poor. Everyone is provided with opportunities to further themselves through school, work, or investment. People sometimes do fall short of that or are born into poverty, fortunately we live in a society with government-sponsored programs to assist. Due to that, I feel as though the disparities are morally justifiable. My own lifestyle is constant with this belief. I go to school, work, and pay taxes like a law binding citizen. In addition, I hope to work and make as much money as I can. P. …show more content…

Singers modern utilitarianism philosophy states that people should select the option based on which of the choices produces the greatest good. When it comes to killing a disabled infant to have another without disabilities, Singer sees this action as being justified. Such answer is due to the idea that killing the infant with disabilities would prevent suffering of the baby itself and its parents; therefore, the option produces the greatest good. I would have to agree. Solely based on the philosophy of modern utilitarianism, the option does produce the greatest good. The disabled infant would not have to wonder throughout life feeling different, in pain, or a social outcast. Furthermore, the parents of the infant will not have to adapt to a more expensive life of caring for a disabled child. In addition, the parents would be able to have another child without disabilities.

Show More
Related

  • Analysis of Time of the Right: Reflections on Liberation by Suzanne Pharr

    400 Words  | 1 Pages

    Economic injustice and oppression occur because someone benefits from them. It is in the interest of someone to create and perpetuate oppressions (pg. 17). If these groups of people that are oppressed were not pitted against one another, an uprising of phenomenal proportions could occur. This is exactly what the rich, white, male, Christian, heterosexual able-bodied society (a.k.a.: The Norm) does not want to happen! Racism, sexism, and classism are necessities for the survival of The Norm.

    Read More

  • Summary Of Class In America By Gregory Mantsios

    607 Words  | 2 Pages

    According to Gregory Mantsios many American people believed that the classes in the United States were irrelevant, that we equally reside(ed) in a middle class nation, that we were all getting richer, and that everyone has an opportunity to succeed in life. But what many believed, was far from the truth. In reality the middle class of the United States receives a very small amount of the nation's wealth, and sixty percent of America's population receives less than 6 percent of the nation's wealth, while the top 1 percent of the American population receives 34 percent of the total national wealth. In the article Class in America ( 2009), written by Gregory Mantsios informs us that there are some huge differences that exist between the classes of America, especially the wealthy and the poor. After

    Read More

  • What Should A Billionaire Give Peter Singer Summary

    1335 Words  | 3 Pages

    Peter Singer’s article “What Should a Billionaire Give- and What Should You?” focuses on how the wealthy could do more to relieve global poverty. Singer uses obvious examples of pathos by showing the example walking by a shallow pond and observing a small child drowning. Singer explains that everyone would save the child at minimal inconvenience, he also says ruining a pair of shoes at the expense of the child is not acceptable for a child to drown. This metaphor shows Singers heavy use of pathos within the article. Singer also exposes the nature of human nature when he our inclination to collect all the things we want with ignoring global poverty and us being responsible for the deaths of the children. Singer argues that wealthy people should

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Peter Singer And Facing Famine

    1361 Words  | 3 Pages

    “The Singer Solution to Poverty” by Peter Singer and “Facing Famine” by Tom Haines, are both dealing with the same issues but the only difference between the two authors are that they use different tactics in which to address the problem and also attempt to get assistance from others. Although both authors intentions are the same, Haines has a much better strategy of  getting the sympathy attention from his audience rather than making them feel guilty for living an average life. The author Peter Singer argues that there is no reason why Americans can’t donate money if they are able to afford luxurious material/products that are not essential to their lives and health. Singer 's solution is for Americans to stop using their money on things that

    Read More

  • A Classless Society In Mantsios's Class In America

    1410 Words  | 3 Pages

    In Mantsios’ “Class in America” he provides us with four myths about the United States. In one of these myths the idea is brought up that the United States is, at its core, a classless society. It is also states that whether rich or poor, everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. The myth also states that health care and education are provided to everyone regardless of their financial stability. This idea about a classless society is exactly what Mantsios claims it to be, a myth. It is untrue to state that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, and to believe that whatever differences exist in financial standing are insignificant. There are clear distinctions between different groups of people depending on their economic and social standing.

    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

  • Carl Cohen's Do Animals Have Rights?

    722 Words  | 2 Pages

    ...nger states “Equality is a moral idea, not an assertion of fact. There is no logically compelling reason for assuming that a factual difference in ability between two people justifies any difference in the amount of consideration we give to their needs and interests”. Singer argues that, as there is no justification for unequal treatment of human beings based on capacity, it is also unjustifiable to treat human and non-human animals differently based on their capacities.

    Read More

  • Morality of Giving

    1069 Words  | 3 Pages

    Singer's argument appears to be mainly an appeal to logos, in his argument he reasons why he thinks it is morally required of people to give for famine relief and other needs. However, his argument relies heavily on pathos as well. The main thrust of his argument is this “If I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child dro...

    Read More

  • Equality in Peter Singer´s All Animals are Equal

    2024 Words  | 5 Pages

    Is he then saying that the animal’s interest in preserving its life should not be regarded as highly as the utility we derive from the animal’s death, as long as the animal does not suffer? It seems that to be morally consistent, Singer should similarly oppose the killing of animals, not just the deliberate causation of their suffering. Singer’s argument is certainly persuasive. However, his argument only goes so far as to say that speciesism is arbitrary and we should replace one arbitrary measure with another – that of sentience. I think that more needs to be done to show why sentience, not any other quality, should be the defining characteristic for moral consideration.

    Read More

  • Famine Relief

    1822 Words  | 4 Pages

    Famine, Affluence, and Morality; Singer suggested, “we should prevent bad occurrences unless, to do so, we had to sacrifice something morally significant” (C&M, 827). However, different philosophers and writers have criticized his view and the general idea to help the poor.

    Read More

  • Singer's Argument Against Vegetarianism

    699 Words  | 2 Pages

    That being said, I am in agreement with it solely because there to my knowledge, has yet to be an argument made that colludes with Singer’s premises but makes the distinct notion the basic principles that surround eating meat, that being an ecological component. Using membership of Homo-sapiens is arbitrary and as such, moral importance should be based off of sentience therefore lending animals equal consideration which provides a further basis for Hare’s own discussion on suffering and killing, it only lends credibility to the notion of providing a full and enjoyable life, regardless of how short lived prior to an animal slaughtering. After further consideration, I believe that Singer's argument does provide it to be impermissible to eat meat based on morals (in the conceptual framework of sentience), but it does not provide enough detail in which one can truly distinguish the fine line between morals and the basic primordial instincts ingrained in humans to maintain ecological

    Read More

  • Peter Singer, And Tom Regan, Peter Singer And Aldo Leopold

    1133 Words  | 3 Pages

    Within the guidelines of utilitarianism, Singer’s approach appears to harmonize, as he believed the goal in life should be to attain happiness and when the desirable level is reached, one should pay it forward. However, to the dismay of many, he believed that one born to pain and suffrage could not reach such pleasure therefore, had nothing to contribute to the environment and hence, such a life need not be continued and such a life furthered, would only be a strain on happiness. Singer’s judgement on moral behavior was that bringing pain into the world would only consume positive energy and could not further the benefits of happiness as, it is absent. In thinking that one’s existence should benefit environmental ethics as a whole or to those who need it most, Singer has said, “It is not enough that an environmental policy conform to the principles of some or other environmental ethic, it should conform to the correct, or best justified, one.” (p.285) Singer is also inclusive to animals within his statement as he considered animals just as equal in nature as humans. Essentially, he had a vision of animals being free from cruelties and exploitations such as factory farming. Extending happiness, to him, was meant only for people and creatures that could share it and, in accordance to his philosophy, deserved it in efforts to amplify well-being. Singer’s morally confusing ethics have added a unique wing in the developments of environmental ethics that, if anything, indulge in daring thoughts and help refine the purpose of

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Singer's Obligation To Assist Argument

    1182 Words  | 3 Pages

    People who believe we are not morally obligated to save the drowning child typically argue that the dichotomy of right and wrong eliminates non-moral acts. It would be noble if someone saved the child of their own volition. If someone did not do so because they thought they had better things to do, no one could compel them to save the child; it wouldn 't be wrong, but morally neutral, like not getting out of your car to move a bag of trash off the highway. If this “morally neutral” category didn 't exist, we would treat the ignorance and inaction of every single individual at all possible moments to not prevent suffering as the same as malicious action. Would we really want to penalize someone because they could have saved the life of a child halfway across the world from them if they gave them some money, but chose instead to spend money on tickets to a movie theater? Say a mother stops feeding her child and lets this child starve to death. Is this an immoral act or a morally neutral act? Both in this case and the drowning child case, the child is in a position where they are helpless to avoid death on their own, and so they are reliant on someone else to save them. In this case, the mother is not specifically undertaking an act of murdering her child. She is not metaphorically "throwing her child into the pond," but rather she is just being purposefully negligent in a way that will result in her child 's death, just as a person is when avoiding saving a drowning child. The only way out of calling this a morally neutral act is to say that the mother has an obligation as a mother to save her child. This is precisely the point of Singer’s argument: we have an obligation as a global society to assist the people who are helpless to save themselves. Is a parent obligated to save a child from downing? Is a child obligated to save a parent? Is a sibling

    Read More

  • Equal Consideration of Interests and Our Moral Obligation

    675 Words  | 2 Pages

    Peter Singer’s argument for animal equality is mainly dependent on the principle of equality. The principle of equality states that we as humans are all equal in a moral sense, meaning that we are each permitted to equal consideration of our interests. Singer also states that the principle of equality cannot only depend on specific qualities of humans (such as race), which would mean that it cannot only be applied to humans either. By this, Peter Singer means that non-human animals should also receive equal consideration of their interests, but only if they are sentient. Anything that is sentient is able to feel both pain and pleasure. In my opinion, sentience is the most important part of Singer’s entire argument because it gives clear reason to why most of the human race should become vegetarian. Singer’s argument for vegetarianism (and just his beliefs in general) is based completely on utilitarianism. He would argue that by eating meat, we do not maximize overall pleasure and actually causes unnecessary suffering. The reason that the suffering is unnecessary is that ...

    Read More

  • Essay On Income Inequality

    1524 Words  | 4 Pages

    Income inequality continues to increase in today’s world, especially in the United States. Income inequality means the unequal distribution between individuals’ assets, wealth, or income. In the Twilight of the Elites, Christopher Hayes, a liberal journalist, states the inequality gap between the rich and the poor are increasing widening, and there need to have things done - tax the rich, provide better education - in order to shortening the inequality gap. America is a meritocratic country, which means that everybody has equal opportunity to be successful regardless of their class privileges or wealth. However, equality of opportunity does not equal equality of outcomes. People are having more opportunities to find a better job, but their incomes are a lot less compared to the top ten percent rich people. In this way, the poor people will never climb up the ladder to high status and become millionaires. Therefore, the government needs to increase all the tax rates on rich people in order to reduce income inequality.

    Read More

More about The Greatest Good Peter Singer Summary

Open Document