Wolf challenges the moral ideal and argues that we are not morally obligated to promote happiness because we wouldn't be happy ourselves. While Singer sports the moral ideal suggest that we are morally obligated to prevent bad thus promoting good. But Wolf believes that this time spent promote good(or preventing bad) wouldn’t all the person to develop their character creating lifeless people living without traits and hobbies nd luxuries. Yet, Singer’s argument will show that we are obligated because we don’t want to teach non-moral selfish traits, personal perfection isn’t key, and promoting happiness is a good life.
Singer claims that we are morally obligated to prevent a bad if it wouldn’t sacrifice anything of comparable moral importance …show more content…
And if we do prevent the bad (as a whole society) we can then work towards character development. Wolf’s article was written in her favor aside from the lifeless aspect there was no other true reason to go against the moral obligation (of helping others). She also uses a simple moral saint to attack and report. Some moral saints are not lifeless before, during, and after preventing the bad and have developed character. She offered this one-sided prejudice paper towards moral sainthood and didn’t even provides steps or an outline to precise way to personal perfection. Her article was written to only show you that the moral ideal is wrong. Almost every sentence is a bashing, diminishing, eliminating any positive thought of moral sainthood. She uses words like unattractive and non-desirable to practical feed you this prejudice opinion that the moral ideal is wrong. And in her focus on providing as much concern and positivity on her side, she didn't truly explain why personal perfection is better than the promotion of good. nd how would you want people to act if you were in suffering (or a bad). Singer filled these thoughts and made the better argument by ultimately being able to answer how would you like it if it was done to
Singer claims that we are morally obligated to prevent a bad if it wouldn’t sacrifice anything of comparable moral importance …show more content…
And if we do prevent the bad (as a whole society) we can then work towards character development. Wolf’s article was written in her favor aside from the lifeless aspect there was no other true reason to go against the moral obligation (of helping others). She also uses a simple moral saint to attack and report. Some moral saints are not lifeless before, during, and after preventing the bad and have developed character. She offered this one-sided prejudice paper towards moral sainthood and didn’t even provides steps or an outline to precise way to personal perfection. Her article was written to only show you that the moral ideal is wrong. Almost every sentence is a bashing, diminishing, eliminating any positive thought of moral sainthood. She uses words like unattractive and non-desirable to practical feed you this prejudice opinion that the moral ideal is wrong. And in her focus on providing as much concern and positivity on her side, she didn't truly explain why personal perfection is better than the promotion of good. nd how would you want people to act if you were in suffering (or a bad). Singer filled these thoughts and made the better argument by ultimately being able to answer how would you like it if it was done to