Title Mark Dowie’s opinion on this concept is that no profit is worth more than a human life. In his article he talks in depth about Ford Motor companies and a car they designed and produced in the seventies, the Pinto. The Pinto was a very rushed project that focused more on making a profit than the quality and safety of the vehicle. The entire tone of the article casts a harsh judgmental light on the decisions made during that project. He makes it very obvious that he opposes Ford decisions to put money before safety. He interviewed a Ford engineer who said, “This company is run by salesmen, not engineers; so the priority is styling, not safety.” He uses italics to drive home his main points, and they’re almost all about how a small price
…show more content…
He instead lowers his view down to individuals, and how he thinks they should do what they can to help others survive. The basis of his article is that, “…if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, we ought to do it.” He shapes out a situation, where a person is starving and you have the money to help. You not giving them money for food or aid didn’t kill them directly, but it impacted it in such a way that, in Singer’s eyes, is on par with killing someone by recklessly driving. You didn’t intend for anyone to die, but you were the cause nonetheless. In a very harsh and to the point quote he says, “…we contribute to the impoverishment of some people to our own benefit.” Because while we are not actually killing people, by us buying luxuries when others don’t even have necessities, it is contributing to their life’s decent. He does admit that only living on necessities so that you can help other’s survive at all cost can be called morally heroic, but that giving nothing, or an amount so trivial it doesn’t even impact your luxury spending, is selfish. From his perspective, humans really should help each other, no matter the profit
He instead lowers his view down to individuals, and how he thinks they should do what they can to help others survive. The basis of his article is that, “…if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, we ought to do it.” He shapes out a situation, where a person is starving and you have the money to help. You not giving them money for food or aid didn’t kill them directly, but it impacted it in such a way that, in Singer’s eyes, is on par with killing someone by recklessly driving. You didn’t intend for anyone to die, but you were the cause nonetheless. In a very harsh and to the point quote he says, “…we contribute to the impoverishment of some people to our own benefit.” Because while we are not actually killing people, by us buying luxuries when others don’t even have necessities, it is contributing to their life’s decent. He does admit that only living on necessities so that you can help other’s survive at all cost can be called morally heroic, but that giving nothing, or an amount so trivial it doesn’t even impact your luxury spending, is selfish. From his perspective, humans really should help each other, no matter the profit