• Home Page
  • Moral Obligation: The Case Against Singer By Peter Singer

Moral Obligation: The Case Against Singer By Peter Singer

Improved Essays
Show More
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Basically, Singer’ moral code is one that is based on old customs that are no longer applicable to today’s society.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

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Peter Singer's Moral Dilemmas: An Analysis
    • 348 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Peter Singer's Moral Dilemmas: An Analysis

    In order to have more of a background on the way that Peter Singer thinks, you should know what type of philosopher he is. Singer is a utilitarian philosopher, along with the likes of other famous philosophers such as David Hume and…

    • 348 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Eggonia Be Allowed To Send Famine Relief To Furesia Case Study
    • 1410 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Eggonia Be Allowed To Send Famine Relief To Furesia Case Study

    We are humans and have good in ourselves, humans are to act as well mean, and not as inhumane this is what make us humans. Mother Teresa echoes, “Give, but give until it hurts.” She has similar principle to Singer’s principle, which is if it’s in our hands to prevent something happening without sacrificing anything of comparable morale significate, then we ought to do…

    • 1410 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Alan Burdick's Essay 'The Truth About Invasive Species'
    • 846 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Alan Burdick's Essay 'The Truth About Invasive Species'

    He introduces his idea by telling readers about a film called Central Station where a woman named Dora can possibly make one thousand dollars by delivering a homeless boy (who is nine years old) to a designated home. Dora doesn't find out the boy was being taken to be killed and have his organs donated until she leaves him, however, she decided to deal with the consequences and rescue the boy from death. Singer relates this to many situations; he compares it to Americans who waste money on things such as upgrading to the latest in technology. He also gives an example where a man has to pick between killing a boy he never met or crashing into his beloved car that’s worth thousands of dollars. The man picked saving his car; and Singer says that people do this every day when they decide to spend their extra money on the finer things rather than making a donation, meaning that people who don't donate don't value a life.…

    • 846 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    The Ethical Dilemmas Of Peter Singer
    • 213 Words
    • 1 Pages

    The Ethical Dilemmas Of Peter Singer

    The following essay has been designed in order to defend Peter Singer’s opinions which claim that we, provided we fit the representation of comfortable circumstances, have an ethical responsibility to aid those who…

    • 213 Words
    • 1 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    John Arthur's Argument Analysis
    • 769 Words
    • 4 Pages

    John Arthur's Argument Analysis

    While your life may be shortened by the loss of a kidney or less enjoyable if lived with only one eye.” (667) Arthur uses this to argue against the greater moral evil rule…

    • 769 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Famine Affluence And Morality Analysis
    • 836 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Famine Affluence And Morality Analysis

    Second Argument Evaluation, Singer: Morality’s Ambivalent Behavior in the Face of Affluence In the piece “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer puts forth his argument that “if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything else morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it,” (Cahn, 505). In his argument Singer claims that men have the moral responsibility to prevent suffering when it does not negatively impact “himself or his dependents” (Cahn, 508), and that the refusal of this prescribed human duty makes him morally incompetent. The extended example that Singer uses as the basis of his argument is the mass famine that struck East Bengal in the 1970s, an issue that received much media coverage, yet—despite its fame—received little help from affluent countries and their constituents. In using this example, Singer exemplifies the ignorance of the prosperous bodies as they chose to allow tragedy to strike…

    • 836 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Philosophers Jan Narveson And Peter Singer: Moral Responsibility And Duty
    • 816 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Philosophers Jan Narveson And Peter Singer: Moral Responsibility And Duty

    Singer contends that we generally have an ethical obligation and duty to help those at risk, and spare them wherever possible. Narveson believes that while it is noble to help another person on the off chance that it bears the little cost to ourselves, this isn't required for us to be…

    • 816 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Superior Essays

    Analysis Of Famine, Affluence And Morality By Peter Singer
    • 1246 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Analysis Of Famine, Affluence And Morality By Peter Singer

    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…

    • 1246 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
    Read More
  • Superior Essays

    John Stuart Mill's 'Utilitarianism'
    • 1497 Words
    • 6 Pages

    John Stuart Mill's 'Utilitarianism'

    Singer sets the stage for his argument by his first premise, which he believes most would agree too, that human suffering and death due to a deficiency of food, shelter, and medical aide are bad (231). Secondly, he states that if it is in one’s power to prevent something bad from happening, without having to sacrifice anything of equal moral importance, we morally ought to do it. He implies that…

    • 1497 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
    Read More
  • Superior Essays

    Of Peter Singer's Famine, Affluence And Morality, And Lifeboat Ethics
    • 1468 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Of Peter Singer's Famine, Affluence And Morality, And Lifeboat Ethics

    it’s your moral responsibility to save the child even though there are a lot of people around (Singer, 1972). From this analogy he argues that if everyone would relieve sufferings one way or another, the entire suffering population will be benefited. But, some people look at others and decide not to help. Singer argues that it’s still that person’s moral responsibility to help; now it becomes that one individual must contribute a larger amount due to the greediness of…

    • 1468 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
    Read More
  • Decent Essays

    Comparing Singer Affluence And Morality
    • 299 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Comparing Singer Affluence And Morality

    Famine. Affluence, and Morality outlined the greater moral evil rule. It basically means we should do everything in our power to stop anything bad from happening without harming anything with moral importance. If we were to take this idea to the highest instinct, we would be giving everything we have away until we are like the ones we are giving to. He knew that most people would not live by this so, he created a more moderate approach.…

    • 299 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
    Read More
  • Great Essays

    Analysis Of Famine, Affluence, And Morality By Peter Singer
    • 1478 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Analysis Of Famine, Affluence, And Morality By Peter Singer

    He does this first by presenting a drowning child situation that attempts to convince people to agree with his main moral principle that people are morally obligated to prevent bad things from happening that would not result in a loss of something of equal moral value. Singer claims that should a person agree that one is morally obligated to save a drowning child with the cost of dirtying their clothes, they therefore must also agree to donate their surplus of money until they themselves are in poverty, because doing so would not risk anything of equal moral value. Contrary to Singer’s argument, one might still be able to agree with his main moral principle without donating all of their money to help prevent poverty. It follows logically this main moral principle is equally applicable to other issues such as the environment, as the degradation of the environment is another bad thing that is preventable to the same extent as poverty. With critical analyzes of Singer’s argument, it may be concluded that one may consistently agree with the initial premises of Singer’s argument without agreement to his conclusion of morally obligatory…

    • 1478 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
    Read More
  • Great Essays

    Poverty In Canada
    • 1992 Words
    • 8 Pages

    Poverty In Canada

    Arthur believes we deserve the fruits of our labours instead of giving them away, he also dubs Singers' idea of preventing any wrong within our power, without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance the "greater moral evil rule" (Sommers 381). Arthur says the moral code Singer supplies is not practical, which in turn means it would not be rational for us human to follow, considering only maybe a hand full of people live by the greater moral evil rule, than to the masses that would rather support a more practical moral code. The greater moral evil rule would seem more fitting to an angel than of a human, which is completely understandable when your luxuries are at stake (Sommers 386). Human are selfish beings, 9/10 our actions are of self-gain or for a lack of a better word; greed. There are not an abundance of notions you would agree upon if nothing were to gain from it, unless under duress or of other circumstances.…

    • 1992 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Singer's Argument Analysis
    • 815 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Singer's Argument Analysis

    In this paper I will reconstruct Singer’s argument as well as argue why his argument is unsound. In Singer’s paper, Famine, Affluence and Morality, he argues that any kind of suffering from lack of food, healthcare and shelter is a bad thing. He further argues that if we have the ability to prevent something bad from happening, that it is our duty as moral beings to prevent suffering unless we have to sacrifice something of significant moral importance. In class we called it the prevent suffering principle. An example that Singer gives is of the prevent suffering principle is to imagine a young child drowning in a shallow pond.…

    • 815 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Superior Essays

    Peter Singer Analysis
    • 1509 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Peter Singer Analysis

    Bogging down the argument in the selfish aspects of the individual, who at most if they do work to combat global suffering is minimally affected detracts from the severity of the problem that is being addressed. What is important is the suffering the absolute poor face, and if the justification to help them is not helping them is murder, then what justification would exist? Singer’s justification still is not enough to truly compel most people into acting, and if the possibility of being a murderer is not enough then no other justification would be either, and any other would be even less compelling. Hence, it is better to assume Peter’s assertion is the case and convince more people to act. Or on a micro-level, is it not better to take Singer at face value and save lives, or at worst Singer be wrong and have still saved…

    • 1509 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
    Read More

Related Topics

Ready To Get Started?
Discover
Company
Follow
©2025 Cram.com
Privacy Policy |  Cookie Policy |  About Ads |  Site Map |  Advertise  | 
  • Cookie Settings