Peter Singer's Moral Dilemmas: An Analysis

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.
In order to have more of a background on the way that Peter Singer thinks, you should know what type of philosopher he is. Singer is a utilitarian philosopher, along with the likes of other famous philosophers such as David Hume and

Related Documents

  • 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

    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

    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
  • 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
  • Improved Essays

    What Makes the World Go Round Professor of Bioethics, Peter Singer, explains in the article “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” that all prosperous people should give all money that is not needed for basic necessities to places that are in need of food and medicine. As an American, I have knowledge this argument would shake up America as a whole. This could create a world of giving up the Capitalistic ways of America and the economic food chain. On the other hand, it could create a world of kindness and less violence. Can you imagine giving up your freedom to help others?…

    • 1058 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved 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
  • Improved Essays

    Summary John Arthurs has a unique stance on world hunger and moral obligation and the way that we should handle these issues. He opens up his argument by analyzing one of Pete Singers rules “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it. “(666) Arthur believes that rule of life is a flawed one. He counters this statement by giving a scenario using Singers moral rule. Arthur states “All of us could help others by giving away or allowing others to use our bodies.…

    • 769 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    What is Utilitarianism? Utilitarianism is a philosophical concept that holds an action to be held right if it tends to promote happiness for the greatest number of people. Utilitarian’s define the morally right actions as those actions that maximize happiness and minimize misery. Many believe that utilitarianism is an unrealistic theory. Arguments and responses to utilitarianism being too demanding have been made John Stuart Mill and Peter Singer.…

    • 783 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    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.…

    • 2138 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In other words, the point of marginal utility is where happiness begins to plateau in regards to extraneous wealth. To Singer, this money would be much more appreciated by someone whose suffering could be ended, rather than someone whose happiness is unaffected by it. Furthermore, Singer argues that affluent societies should not send aid merely because they have the desire to do, but because they have a moral obligation to do…

    • 1033 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Peter Singer Argument

    • 1206 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The argument to which Singer lays his claim would be pragmatic in an idealistic world. However, this world in which human existence thrives is far from being in a state that is unimpeded by flaws. Singer argues that those who earn enough to spend their extra money on luxuries should instead donate those funds to overseas organizations to help combat poverty. This proposal is unrealistic due to reasons that you can’t expect beings who carry faultful qualities to amend their ways without delay. Many individuals who have become accustomed to living an affluent lifestyle, will feel reluctant towards Singer’s proposal due to the fear that it will jeopardize their comfortable way of life.…

    • 1206 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    If Singer was truly attempting to prevent the greatest amount of human suffering for the value of the contributions that he gives to charity, it could potentially be possible that he did not take into account the suffering that he was experiencing in his life due to the heavy financial burden of making large contributions of money. Not having the capability to support yourself but helping others with large contributions can cause suffering for yourself so, the principle to prevent suffering can be used to argue against his other argument on giving money away to prevent suffering. In order to prevent suffering due to the financial burden, the best decision would be to reduce the amount of money being contributed. There have been many cases that different charities have misused money and other contributions. There also have been cases where the money have been used inefficiently.…

    • 815 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In his 2005 paper “Ethics and Intuitions,” Peter Singer seeks to find a new role for intuitions in moral theorizing in light of studies by Jonathan Haidt and Joshua Greene, which seem to cast doubt on the reliability of moral intuitions. These studies suggest that much of our moral reasoning is less based in rationalizing and more based in instinctual “gut” reactions, and that these instincts can be explained in terms of their evolutionary history. Further, Greene in particular demonstrates that these moral instincts can be manipulated in order to give contradicting reports, suggesting that moral intuitions are unreliable. Singer, noting how moral theorists have thus far been unable to give an account of morality without relying on moral intuitions,…

    • 1173 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays