Singer’s premises are so judiciously phrased that it invites non-consequentialist acceptance. Moreover Singer applies the principle to a simple experiment which offers clarity in comparing the moral significance: “If I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought to wade in and pull the child out. This will mean getting my clothes muddy but this is insignificant, while the death of the child would presumably be a very bad thing." (Singer, 1972). It can be assumed that one’s ethical views are of little to no import, when wet and muddy clothes are entirely insignificant compared to death of a child.
The crux of Singer’s statement depends on carefully phrased and generally amenable set of statements that can have various …show more content…
Peter Singer proposes that affluence should exist to a point where nothing but the basic necessities of life remains (Singer et al, 2008). However, Singer is also cautious to remind that the methods used to provide assistance are of import; this is in terms of who we donate our money to and the kind of help that we provide (Singer et al, 2008). He makes note of the few organisations - GiveWell.org - that are dedicated in determining the most effective methods of providing aid (Singer et al, 2008).
“Whatever kind of aid proves most effective in specific circumstances, the obligation to assist is not reduced" (Singer, 2011). There are many protestations to Singer’s opinion that; we have moral obligations to contribute for the prevention of poverty. Such efforts to deny our moral obligation to the world’s poor originate from various ethical positions. Two of such objections are as follows:
The first objection has consequential logic, however its conclusion is different. It states that by preventing poverty now, it may lead to more suffering in the future, so we should implement a triage policy - providing help according to the urgency of need of care - in order to lessen the usage of resources which inevitably will be need in the future (Campbell et al,
The crux of Singer’s statement depends on carefully phrased and generally amenable set of statements that can have various …show more content…
Peter Singer proposes that affluence should exist to a point where nothing but the basic necessities of life remains (Singer et al, 2008). However, Singer is also cautious to remind that the methods used to provide assistance are of import; this is in terms of who we donate our money to and the kind of help that we provide (Singer et al, 2008). He makes note of the few organisations - GiveWell.org - that are dedicated in determining the most effective methods of providing aid (Singer et al, 2008).
“Whatever kind of aid proves most effective in specific circumstances, the obligation to assist is not reduced" (Singer, 2011). There are many protestations to Singer’s opinion that; we have moral obligations to contribute for the prevention of poverty. Such efforts to deny our moral obligation to the world’s poor originate from various ethical positions. Two of such objections are as follows:
The first objection has consequential logic, however its conclusion is different. It states that by preventing poverty now, it may lead to more suffering in the future, so we should implement a triage policy - providing help according to the urgency of need of care - in order to lessen the usage of resources which inevitably will be need in the future (Campbell et al,