Moral Obligation: The Case Against Singer By Peter Singer

2138 Words 9 Pages

Peter Singer ultimately believes that we are morally obligated to help those who need help and are suffering. He provides various arguments that support his belief that everyone should help the dying people of East Bengal. He starts off by assuming one thing, “suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad.” This assumption serves as a foundation for his many claims since it provides a definition for what he considers bad. Furthermore, his first claim is that we are morally obligated to stop bad things from happening only if we do not have to sacrifice something of equal value. To further explain this claim, Singer uses a child drowning as an example. According to Singer, if you were to see a child drowning you are …show more content…
Arthur believes that a new and practical moral code should be established where others only help those in suffering if it is not a significant reduction in the helper’s happiness. He reaches this conclusion by criticizing many of Singer’s claims and rejecting them. In total, there are four main arguments that led to Arthur’s conclusion. The first being that Singer focuses only on one factor of morality, the greater moral evil rule. The greater moral evil rule is the name Arthur gave to Singer’s main principle; people are morally obliged to prevent suffering, if the price is a suffering of less value. According to Arthur, focusing on the greater moral evil rule implies that we are not viewed as equals. From an objective point of view, no one has a unique status nor a greater level of suffering, suffering is still suffering. Prioritizing the suffering of someone else implies that we are not equal because you are treating them as inferiors. Furthermore, by not getting to buy the extra things you do not need, you would be giving up part of your happiness, according to …show more content…
Basically, Singer’ moral code is one that is based on old customs that are no longer applicable to today’s society. It is also very impractical since not a lot a people are willing to help. You cannot expect humans to act as angels all the time. We are not objective or rational when it comes down to making decisions that affect others. We always do things that benefit us and not

John Arthurs Moral Evil Rule

My second problem with Arthurs premise is his stand on entitlement and the moral code. He states “Part of our code should be dropped, so that people could no longer invoke rights and deserts as justification for not making large sacrifices for strangers.” (668) the problem with this statement is that the influence of others should not be the determining factor for you to do something that is morally right. If you see something wrong, you should not have to go to a book of code to decide whether you should be a good person. To build on this Arthur gives the lifeguard situation saying how they “Contract to watch out for someone’s…

Words: 769 - Pages: 4

Duty And Ethics: Immanuel Kant And The Moral Law

Also, weakness is illustrated in the deontological ethics because it chooses to ignore people emotions. Deontological ethics ignore people emotions by allowing people to only show concern towards their duty. I do agree with Kant that lying, cheating, and stealing is immoral but I feel that sometimes people have no other choice because other people want lean them a helping hand. I do not think that the moral law is as universal as Kant believe or as Kant would like for it to be because if it was there will not be a lot of police brutality taking place. Also, if the moral law was as universal as Kant would like for it to be there would not be a lot of terrorist attacks in the…

Words: 1804 - Pages: 8

Susan Wolf's Moral Saint

One may seek to be morally as good a possible, but the pursuit of such an ideal moral excellence should not be expected or required of anyone. Despite individuals who seek to pursue this moral excellence this is chosen as a personal project and is not expected. Qualities of the moral ability and the quest are highly significant, but these only signify one class of many virtues. We cannot and could not satisfy the moral principle nor is it a good idea for individuals to attempt. I support Wolf’s argument that both a Kantian and utilitarian moral saint would be ‘unpleasant and possibly disturbed psychological type’ I also believe that this type of saint hood isn’t for everyone but may be the right goal for some rare…

Words: 1173 - Pages: 5

Difference Between Bennatism And Anti-Natalism

There seems to be a groundless and illogical inequality in Benatar’s moralizing. Either we view the sufferings and pleasures of future lives to have some moral value, thus holding a pleasurable life to be “worthy” and a life of suffering to be “bad”, or we consider both to be morally neutral. A similar logic would say that killing is bad, but saving a life has no moral value. Can we really accept this very unequal type of morality? Anti-natalists may say that their argument has been misrepresented, because this argument only works for ‘non-existent’ beings.…

Words: 1970 - Pages: 8

Similarities Between Aristophanes And Aquinas

Aquinas does not accept poverty the way that Aristophanes does. He does not believe we have the right to own something that someone else needs to survive – “All things are common property in cases of necessity” (ST II-II Q.66 A.7). If such a situation arises, it is not even theft to appropriate someone else’s goods, because to keep those possessions away from the needy is immoral. Aristophanes shrugs in the face of poverty and finds what good he can in it; Aquinas finds it abhorrent and suggests a system where ownership is conditional on…

Words: 1007 - Pages: 4

Difference Between Liberarian And Utilitarian Argument

Moral relativism is fine and accepted until someone does something that is considered extremely wrong by the public. Once this happens then moral relativism is thrown out the window and the belief that what this person did is wrong, outweighs the belief that the person is entitled to their own moral actions. If moral relativism can be rejected when someone is obviously doing the wrong thing then shouldn’t it also be rejected when people aren’t giving money to help others? On the bottom of page 25, Singer explains that if we reject moral relativism in one area then we should reject it in all. Another moral objection revolves around the idea that the money you make is your own and should be spent on yourself.…

Words: 1109 - Pages: 5

Morality In Fundamentals Of Ethics, By Shafer-Landau

I also think that the natural law theory doesn’t contain the best reasons on why someone would do something. To kill someone and then say that you were just staying loyal to your human nature would still be cruel and wrong on all levels and therefore, wouldn’t be a good reason. With the natural law theory, I don’t think think a reason could be properly justified. The theory simply states that our morality is based upon how we properly use the traits we were born with. It also says that we don’t need to find reasons or think twice about whether our actions stand behind good or bad reasons, as we just have to carry out what the majority have always carried out because that is essentially human…

Words: 1102 - Pages: 5

The Ethical Dilemmas Of Peter Singer's Argument

It 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.” We have an obligation to assist where we are needed. Per the General Principle, the only justification for rejecting adherence is to prove the displeasure you would endure is at least as great as the harm you could prevent. Simply put, Singer believes we should live frugally and give generously, and it would be wrong if we…

Words: 1702 - Pages: 7

Analysis Of Famine, Affluence And Morality By Peter Singer

I will also deny his second premise which states that it is our moral responsibility to prevent bad things from happening to other people. In this section I will outline Singer’s argument. Singer’s first premise states that any suffering stemming from poverty is morally wrong. This suffering can include suffering from not enough food, poor living conditions, or a lack of proper medical care. His second premise describes that it is our moral…

Words: 1246 - Pages: 5

Famine, Affluence, And Morality By Peter Singer

Singer believes that the social distinction between duty and charity must be reconsidered. Furthermore, charity should no longer be seen as a supererogatory act, or rather an act that is socially perceived as virtuous but has no social consequences if ignored. His argument is that people should not spend money on luxuries, as they have a moral obligation to give money to those in need. Singer briefly notes the objection of proximity that people often have towards his main argument. Some may be apprehensive about giving their excess money to people in distant countries, while there are local people with similar needs.…

Words: 811 - Pages: 4

Moral Obligation: The Case Against Singer By Peter Singer

Related Documents

John Arthurs Moral Evil Rule

Duty And Ethics: Immanuel Kant And The Moral Law

Susan Wolf's Moral Saint

Difference Between Bennatism And Anti-Natalism

Similarities Between Aristophanes And Aquinas

Difference Between Liberarian And Utilitarian Argument

Morality In Fundamentals Of Ethics, By Shafer-Landau

The Ethical Dilemmas Of Peter Singer's Argument

Analysis Of Famine, Affluence And Morality By Peter Singer

Famine, Affluence, And Morality By Peter Singer

Related Topics

Ready To Get Started?

Discover

Company

Follow