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Basically, Singer’ moral code is one that is based on old customs that are no longer applicable to today’s society.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