Singer's Argument Analysis: The Life You Can Save

In his article, “The Life You Can Save,” Singer displays how many Americans have the means to send money to help those suffering from poverty and terrible living conditions, concluding that if a person does not donate thousands of dollars to aid agencies, they are doing something morally wrong. However, in objection to Singer’s arguments, John Arthur points out that if a person must do what creates the most good, then they are therefore morally wrong when not donating organs to other people, an illogical concept that contradicts Singer’s greater moral evil rule. While Singer may be able to rebut the objection points, he cannot deny the foundation of the objection, therefore rendering his argument invalid. One of the arguments that leads Singer …show more content…
He uses the example that, based on Singer’s argument, it would be morally wrong not to give away an eye because the happiness – and therefore good – that a blind person would get from receiving an eye would outweigh the cost of losing an eye. Arthur states that “All of us could help others by giving away or allowing others to use our bodies…if anything is clear, however, it is that our code does not require such heroism; you are entitled to keep your second eye….the reason is often expressed in terms of rights; it’s your body, you have a right to it, and that weighs against whatever duty you have to help” (Arthur 667). Arthur suggests that despite what Singer implies, humans have a right to various things in their lives, such as their body and money, and there is no obligation to contribute every extra possible help simply because there are people who have poorer lives. Arthur states that morality does not lie in doing the greatest action possible at any given moment, and humans are under no moral obligations to contribute thousands of extra dollars to third world countries merely because the sacrifice would not be as rough as what the poor people go