Morally Obligated In Peter Singer's Argument

Peter Singer identifies the moral problem in society and the lack of individual participation in global affairs. More specifically, a lack of interest and contribution in the plight of the world’s most destitute and unfortunate. In Singer’s argument, he brings up several points in the defense of his position: proximity and quantity of possible contributors. Singer identified his argument as, “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, we ought, morally, to do it.” Additionally, it is in individuals’ power to prevent bad things from happening. Therefore, people are morally obligated to perform. Singer defends this point by identifying the fallacious idea associated with proximity citing that individuals are no more obligated to save a person near them than they are to save someone halfway around the Earth. In further defense of his position, Singer refers to the misconception that because there are other individuals that are equally capable of saving someone, does not morally excuse one from saving the person. …show more content…
He provides ample evidence to support his claim and eliminate doubt held by the opposition. Additionally, Singer’s premises are consistent and are proven to be true, as well as the conclusion. For example, Singer proposes that if individuals are capable of preventing something bad, then they are morally obliged to do it. Individuals are capable of preventing something bad; therefore, people are morally obligated to do it. In defense of this premise, Singer points to the idea that whenever individuals purchase items that are for purposes other than survival they prove that an overwhelming percentage of people are capable of preventing bad things from