Essay on Analysis Of ' The Life You Can Save '

1359 Words Sep 16th, 2014 6 Pages
In his article, “The Life You Can Save,” Singer displays how many Americans have the means to send money to help those suffering from poverty and terrible living conditions, concluding that if a person does not donate thousands of dollars to aid agencies, they are doing something morally wrong. However, in objection to Singer’s arguments, John Arthur points out that if a person must do what creates the most good, then they are therefore morally wrong when not donating organs to other people, an illogical concept that contradicts Singer’s greater moral evil rule. While Singer may be able to rebut the objection points, he cannot deny the foundation of the objection, therefore rendering his argument invalid. One of the arguments that leads Singer to his conclusion is the idea that if a person has the power to prevent suffering from terrible living circumstances, it is morally wrong not to provide the means to do it. Singer writes how countless Americans can assist others without sacrificing anything nearly as important, meaning that luxury items and unnecessary expenses can be eliminated and given to others without anything vital being lost. Singer states “…if we think ethically, then [others] desires must count as if they were our own, and we cannot deny that the suffering and death are bad…to prevent something bad, we would have to risk something nearly as meaningful as the bad thing we are preventing…” (Singer 576). Taking other people’s desires into morality and pointing…

Related Documents