Peter Singer’s theory states that the rich have a moral obligation to helping out the poor. This specific criteria is presumably stated and stressed because the rich have assets at their disposal to give to others and wouldn’t suffer financially. Coinciding with Singer’s statement that the rich are responsible, it is apparent that everyone, not just the rich, is obligated to help those in need who have the logistical means to do so. To say that our need to help the global poor is in the same ballpark as our own obligation to help a drowning child would be correct. Singer’s argument for this position can be narrowed down to two main ideas that coincide with one another: Firstly, if we can prevent something bad from happening we should do it.
…show more content…
Demandingness objection is defined as “an argument against varieties of consequentialism” (Mulgan). Consequentialism is defined as: “one’s conduct is the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct” (Haines). It is important to define these terms because they are ways to see the objection that people have towards Singer. Digging further into the concept of demandingness objection, laid out by a critic of Singer’s, Tim Mulgan, states that: “Consequentialism makes demand D. D is an unreasonable demand for a moral theory to make. Therefore, consequentialism makes unreasonable demands” (Mulgan). Mulgan is not wrong when it comes to the fact that any idea could make unreasonable demands. This statement can go as far as to say that ideas, such as consequentialism, is an idea that correlates to Singer’s statement with having people give money to the poor which is an idea that would be an unreasonable one to make when taking the stance of Mulgan’s. When pressing further into the discussion that giving money to the poor could be an unreasonable thing to do, it is also a statement that holds the same amount of truth as to making it reasonable to give money to the poor. Consequentialism is an idea that can create good or bad moral consequences. This idea is only as good as it can be put to use in a real life setting. If we were to create a scenario in that I were to give money to a charity and that charity would put my money to good use in giving supplies to people then my act was indeed a good act on both fronts. If the fact so happens to be that I use that same money and give it to another charity but they end up not using it for what it was intended to do. This would be a bad act but on their part. This example correlates to consequentialism and the idea that no matter what charity I choose, I am
Demandingness objection is defined as “an argument against varieties of consequentialism” (Mulgan). Consequentialism is defined as: “one’s conduct is the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct” (Haines). It is important to define these terms because they are ways to see the objection that people have towards Singer. Digging further into the concept of demandingness objection, laid out by a critic of Singer’s, Tim Mulgan, states that: “Consequentialism makes demand D. D is an unreasonable demand for a moral theory to make. Therefore, consequentialism makes unreasonable demands” (Mulgan). Mulgan is not wrong when it comes to the fact that any idea could make unreasonable demands. This statement can go as far as to say that ideas, such as consequentialism, is an idea that correlates to Singer’s statement with having people give money to the poor which is an idea that would be an unreasonable one to make when taking the stance of Mulgan’s. When pressing further into the discussion that giving money to the poor could be an unreasonable thing to do, it is also a statement that holds the same amount of truth as to making it reasonable to give money to the poor. Consequentialism is an idea that can create good or bad moral consequences. This idea is only as good as it can be put to use in a real life setting. If we were to create a scenario in that I were to give money to a charity and that charity would put my money to good use in giving supplies to people then my act was indeed a good act on both fronts. If the fact so happens to be that I use that same money and give it to another charity but they end up not using it for what it was intended to do. This would be a bad act but on their part. This example correlates to consequentialism and the idea that no matter what charity I choose, I am