Matthew Wallace
Philosophy 1010
Final Take Home
12/12/14
Topic #1: Singer’s Arguments Peter Singer is one of the most well-known and famous philosophers alive today. Peter Singer’s two articles, Rich and Poor, and All Animals Are Equal explore many interesting concepts and arguments. For his first article, Peter Singer argues in Rich and Poor that we have a duty and moral obligation to help prevent absolute poverty. Singer calls absolute poverty “life at the very margin of existence.” Singer talks about how absolute poverty countries suffer from several issues such as infant mortality being eight times higher, life expectancy being lower and mal-nutrition. Singer contrasts the people in poverty …show more content…
The first part is that if there is something we can prevent without sacrificing anything significant than we should do it. The second argument is that absolute poverty is bad and the final argument is that there is some absolute poverty that can be prevented without us sacrificing much. However the main point that Singer is trying to bring accoss in his arguments is that we have the ability to prevent something really bad without sacrificing much of any significance and that we should be doing it and acting on it right now. Singer’s first part of the argument is where he makes his point while the second part of the argument is assumed to be unchallenged. The third part of Singer’s argument is the part of his claim that causes controversy for people as Singer’s argument claims only some absolute poverty can be prevented but not all of it. Singer also uses a utilitarian approach as he attempts to prove that we have moral obligation to the poor as he says giving up certain things could possibly improve the quality of life for another human …show more content…
Aiding all those in absolute poverty could lead to massive overpopulation and the decreasing development of richer nations. An argument supporting this objection is that it is better to save some people rather than none, however some people must still be left behind. I believe that Singer does have a point about helping out the poor but he fails to establish that we absolutely have a duty to help everyone
Singer’s other article, All Animals Are Equal, makes claims that we as human beings should show the same respect to the lives of non-humans so that all animals are equal. However Singer first has to overcome speciesism which is giving different values or rights to beings based on the species group they belong to. Singer makes three cases against speciesism with them being equality is based on equal consideration, equality is a moral idea, and suffering is a prerequisite for more
Philosophy 1010
Final Take Home
12/12/14
Topic #1: Singer’s Arguments Peter Singer is one of the most well-known and famous philosophers alive today. Peter Singer’s two articles, Rich and Poor, and All Animals Are Equal explore many interesting concepts and arguments. For his first article, Peter Singer argues in Rich and Poor that we have a duty and moral obligation to help prevent absolute poverty. Singer calls absolute poverty “life at the very margin of existence.” Singer talks about how absolute poverty countries suffer from several issues such as infant mortality being eight times higher, life expectancy being lower and mal-nutrition. Singer contrasts the people in poverty …show more content…
The first part is that if there is something we can prevent without sacrificing anything significant than we should do it. The second argument is that absolute poverty is bad and the final argument is that there is some absolute poverty that can be prevented without us sacrificing much. However the main point that Singer is trying to bring accoss in his arguments is that we have the ability to prevent something really bad without sacrificing much of any significance and that we should be doing it and acting on it right now. Singer’s first part of the argument is where he makes his point while the second part of the argument is assumed to be unchallenged. The third part of Singer’s argument is the part of his claim that causes controversy for people as Singer’s argument claims only some absolute poverty can be prevented but not all of it. Singer also uses a utilitarian approach as he attempts to prove that we have moral obligation to the poor as he says giving up certain things could possibly improve the quality of life for another human …show more content…
Aiding all those in absolute poverty could lead to massive overpopulation and the decreasing development of richer nations. An argument supporting this objection is that it is better to save some people rather than none, however some people must still be left behind. I believe that Singer does have a point about helping out the poor but he fails to establish that we absolutely have a duty to help everyone
Singer’s other article, All Animals Are Equal, makes claims that we as human beings should show the same respect to the lives of non-humans so that all animals are equal. However Singer first has to overcome speciesism which is giving different values or rights to beings based on the species group they belong to. Singer makes three cases against speciesism with them being equality is based on equal consideration, equality is a moral idea, and suffering is a prerequisite for more