Morally Obligated In Peter Singer's Argument

Improved Essays
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

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    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.…

    • 2138 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The moral dilemma shown here, is the same one that Singer believes occurs every time an American who already owns a TV chooses to go out and buy a new one. Instead of using this excess money to upgrade their television, they should be donating it to prevent the deaths of kids in need. Even though these two decision both have different factors to them, they both could lead to the same result. Except, in one scenario a kid dies by being sold to an organ peddler, and in the other a child dies of hunger on the street.…

    • 348 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Peter Singer Poverty

    • 1063 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Peter Singer argues that most people will think that Bob’s action is unhuman and wrong than he remind us that we also have the opportunities to save children around the world from dying through organization such UNICEF or Oxfam America etc. By comparison, Singers states “…Bob’s situation resembles that of people able but unwilling to donate to oversea aid….”(203) Since the result of Bob not throwing the switch is that the child died, that can be said the same to the people not donating to help poor children results in children dying. In other word, Singers believes that if we think everything is wrong when it is involving children death then it is also wrong for not donating to the charities because it also leads to children’s death. Singer also provides a calculation and information on how much we need to donate in order to save a 2 year-old child.…

    • 1063 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    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
  • Improved Essays

    The first problem that I find in Arthurs argument is how he uses the moral evil rule. Singer implied this rule to simply say if you can help someone in need without inconveniencing yourself then you should do so. Arthur goes on to give…

    • 769 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Where Singer's guideline dictates, “If it is in our power to prevent something very bad happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance we ought to do it” (147). Narveson withstands that there is a division between principles in the abstract to be weighted against potential outcomes and policies that are “pursued in the real world, (where) facts cannot be ignored” (145). Further, what we are committed to do (justice) and what might be ethically virtuous for us to do, charity. Resisting arguments that we should compel others into action, Narveson states that while it is virtuous to aid to others, it is never it is never morally tolerable to force someone to be charitable. Charity depends on empathy and is an activity that flows from the heart.…

    • 816 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Singer does not provide criteria to decide on what is morally comparable. Also, I will deny Singer’s conclusion that we are obligated to donate as much as we can to help end poverty. I will argue that donating to charity is supererogatory, which means that donating to charity is not obligated, but instead a positive thing to do. I will also deny his second premise which states that it is our moral responsibility to prevent bad things from happening to other people.…

    • 1246 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    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
  • Superior Essays

    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
  • Great Essays

    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
  • Decent Essays

    Are we, as Singer seems to think, always morally obligated to do the most good that we can, or are some acts of charity/altruism "above and beyond" the call of duty? We as Humans are obligated to do most good if we can. For example singer gives the example of the child drowning in situation like that doing the right thing is forced upon you. If you know as a person that you are able to help to save the child’s life from drowning if you just try you are obligated to do so.…

    • 335 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Singer uses the illustration of rescuing a child from drowning in a pond. The strong principle states that if it is not going to cost you what it is costing the other person you should do it. In other words, you should do whatever you can to prevent something bad. The example in the article describes a professor walking by and seeing the child drown. The conflict is not whether to save the child or not, but should the professor delay or cancel class.…

    • 181 Words
    • 1 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    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
  • Improved Essays

    Peter Singer believes that our daily decisions we make with the spending of our own money is considered to be immoral. Spending money on anything that is not essential to maintaining your health is considered to be unnecessary. He continues to say that we should spend our money towards saving others’ lives rather than unnecessary luxuries such as vacations. However, he states that if the individual is unable to donate money to another individual in need that specific individual would not be considered morally wrong because it would hinder their own necessities of life. People are considered morally wrong if they decide to buy unnecessary luxuries rather than giving the money to saving someone’s life.…

    • 400 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Everyday millions of people around the world suffer in circumstances, in which they could die from lack of proper care and resources. In Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Peter Singer acknowledges this issue facing humanity and argues for the moral obligation to give large amounts of money to those in need. Singer believes that all who are able should be giving up many, if not all of their luxuries to help give the less fortunate their necessities. I will begin by summarizing the argument that Singer dictates in his article and then explain my reasoning for believing his notions to be sound and valid.…

    • 2212 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Superior Essays