One of the many arguments that Singer presents throughout his article, “The Life You Can Save”, has made Mr. Singer a preeminent and well-known philosopher. Singer claims that in not donating to human organization, those in a financial position to do so are acting immorally. Donating substantial bulk of your earnings to people that can’t meet their basic needs is a step to true happiness. Mr. Singer explains that in 2009, there was a total estimate of 10 million children under the age of 5 that died of causes to poverty, which included: contracting malaria, measles and diarrhea. Unfortunately, these children are vulnerable to all ghastly diseases, which are created from a lack of resources like clean water and basic hygiene. Thus,
…show more content…
Singer presents to us is with a very rare and valuable old Bugatti car that Bob parked at a railway track that divides into two. On the other tack, there is a child playing. Bob notices that the train is heading towards the child in a very fast pace. Bob can throw a switch and have the train crash into his car, which would ruin bob’s investment for retirement or possibly save the child’s life. This example illustrates the second premises, In which, it is all in our power to stop something tragic from occurring without relinquishing anything nearly as important. According to Singer’s premises, choosing the car over the child would be morally wrong. First premises that Mr. Singer mentions in his article is that people should never have to suffer and die of a lack of food or a place to stay, in which I totally agree with. The last premises he mentions is that everyone should donate because most people can without having to abdicate anything nearly important. All in all, Mr. Singer believes that if you are not donating to aid agencies then you are doing something …show more content…
Peter Singer’s main philosophy is that no child or adult living in poor countries should die due to a lack of fresh water, food or basic health and medical needs. He gives examples like the drowning child to make people aware that, if it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything as valuable or important, then it is wrong not to do so. Mr. Singer feels that people that live and receive beyond their basic needs should contribute to aid agencies. Singer believes that spending extra money on luxuries while 10 million children are dying due to poverty is just utterly and morally erroneous. Thus, John Arthur is also a utilitarian and believes that people should contribute to aid agencies that will stop unfortunate people from dying each year due to poverty. However, Mr. John Arthur has a very different approach; believing that every person has a right to their entitlement and earnings. Mr. John believes that moral codes are created and that it is not in human nature to give aid to others. Mr. John believes that Mr. Singer’s idea would backfire due to the following reasons: disincentive work, social conflict, guilt which would result in declination of contribution. I agree with John Arthur about the idea that people would give less to charity if they went by Peter Singer’s moral ethic code, of ought to help other if you are meeting your basic needs. Most people, especially in today’s society, feel they are entitled to their
Singer presents to us is with a very rare and valuable old Bugatti car that Bob parked at a railway track that divides into two. On the other tack, there is a child playing. Bob notices that the train is heading towards the child in a very fast pace. Bob can throw a switch and have the train crash into his car, which would ruin bob’s investment for retirement or possibly save the child’s life. This example illustrates the second premises, In which, it is all in our power to stop something tragic from occurring without relinquishing anything nearly as important. According to Singer’s premises, choosing the car over the child would be morally wrong. First premises that Mr. Singer mentions in his article is that people should never have to suffer and die of a lack of food or a place to stay, in which I totally agree with. The last premises he mentions is that everyone should donate because most people can without having to abdicate anything nearly important. All in all, Mr. Singer believes that if you are not donating to aid agencies then you are doing something …show more content…
Peter Singer’s main philosophy is that no child or adult living in poor countries should die due to a lack of fresh water, food or basic health and medical needs. He gives examples like the drowning child to make people aware that, if it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything as valuable or important, then it is wrong not to do so. Mr. Singer feels that people that live and receive beyond their basic needs should contribute to aid agencies. Singer believes that spending extra money on luxuries while 10 million children are dying due to poverty is just utterly and morally erroneous. Thus, John Arthur is also a utilitarian and believes that people should contribute to aid agencies that will stop unfortunate people from dying each year due to poverty. However, Mr. John Arthur has a very different approach; believing that every person has a right to their entitlement and earnings. Mr. John believes that moral codes are created and that it is not in human nature to give aid to others. Mr. John believes that Mr. Singer’s idea would backfire due to the following reasons: disincentive work, social conflict, guilt which would result in declination of contribution. I agree with John Arthur about the idea that people would give less to charity if they went by Peter Singer’s moral ethic code, of ought to help other if you are meeting your basic needs. Most people, especially in today’s society, feel they are entitled to their