Famine, Affluence, And Morality By Peter Singer And World Hunger And Moral Obligation

1084 Words Apr 13th, 2016 null Page
In the two articles, “Famine, Affluence, And Morality” by Peter singer and “ World Hunger And Moral Obligation: The Case Against Singer” by John Arthur Talks generally about ethics, To be more specific, they talk about the self of need of what is the moral right thing to do and the duty of what is someone 's job as a human to do for others. Both have different arguments and to get straight to the point, Singer believe that the right moral thing to do is help others when you can regardless of the situation or distance you are from. We must take away more bad from the situation and leave more good. This does not mean everyone should have the same amount of good but as long as we take away the bad, we can all leave it fair for everyone with no suffering. Singer came up with the assumption of starving, no shelter, and medical care is bad and the moral right thing to do is for us a whole be responsible of eliminating this bad. Think of it more of a socialist economy, we must have responsibility for taking care of one another as a whole not as an individual. There shouldn 't be no bias opinion as well, it does not change the fact we are all human beings and the right thing to do is help the ones who needs the help even if sacrificing comparable of moral importance. Arthur in the other hand disagrees with Singer 's argument of what is moral right. Arthur believes more of the individual rights. You have the rights to choose if you want to help or not. You do not have to help anyone…

Related Documents