In Peter Singer’s argument, the reader is forced to analyze the morality of their day-to-day lives. Singer’s ethical argument challenges ordinary consumers to change their unnoticeable immoral routines of disregarding charitable donations. He argues there is no moral difference between a man letting a child drown so his shoes are not ruined and someone buying luxury items instead of donating that money to a relief agency. In this paper, I will clarify any relevant terminology, elucidate Singers argument, discuss the claims on a moral difference, and ultimately defend the claim that proximity is not morally relevant.
Clarifying any terminology: moral duty or obligation means a duty which one owes, and which he ought to preform, but which he …show more content…
His argument contains two premises and a conclusion:
1. Suffering and death from a lack of food and other necessities are bad
2. ‘If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening’ without excessive sacrifice, we have a moral duty to do it
3. Therefore, we have a moral duty to help the poor and starving of the world (regardless of their proximity to us or how many other people are in a position to …show more content…
Singer mentions a scenario to support his argument: a man on his way to work passes a pond where a toddler is drowning, he desires to save the child, but if he does, he will be late to work and ruin his suit and new shoes. Mostly everyone would agree that the person who does not save the child from dying, is a morally bad person. Singer then compares the morality of this scenario to the thousands of people buying material things they do not necessarily need, instead of donating to famine relief funds that save children from dying. Equating the morality of the two scenarios, Singer argues there is no moral difference. Instead, he agrees that a mere psychological difference prevails. Since the child dying from starvation is not in front of someone, one will not feel as inclined to donate money to a relief agency that will save that child. With the drowning child, the child is right in front of the man, with no one else around, so the direct impact feels extremely compared to the other scenario. The proximity of the dying child between the scenarios creates a profound psychological difference, people will not feel the moral obligation if the child is not right in front of their eyes. However, Singer maintains that the morality of the cases remains equal-the moral obligation remains
Clarifying any terminology: moral duty or obligation means a duty which one owes, and which he ought to preform, but which he …show more content…
His argument contains two premises and a conclusion:
1. Suffering and death from a lack of food and other necessities are bad
2. ‘If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening’ without excessive sacrifice, we have a moral duty to do it
3. Therefore, we have a moral duty to help the poor and starving of the world (regardless of their proximity to us or how many other people are in a position to …show more content…
Singer mentions a scenario to support his argument: a man on his way to work passes a pond where a toddler is drowning, he desires to save the child, but if he does, he will be late to work and ruin his suit and new shoes. Mostly everyone would agree that the person who does not save the child from dying, is a morally bad person. Singer then compares the morality of this scenario to the thousands of people buying material things they do not necessarily need, instead of donating to famine relief funds that save children from dying. Equating the morality of the two scenarios, Singer argues there is no moral difference. Instead, he agrees that a mere psychological difference prevails. Since the child dying from starvation is not in front of someone, one will not feel as inclined to donate money to a relief agency that will save that child. With the drowning child, the child is right in front of the man, with no one else around, so the direct impact feels extremely compared to the other scenario. The proximity of the dying child between the scenarios creates a profound psychological difference, people will not feel the moral obligation if the child is not right in front of their eyes. However, Singer maintains that the morality of the cases remains equal-the moral obligation remains