In life we are faced with a series of “big questions”. These questions answer whether we are decently moral people. The ‘big question” we are going to tackle is ‘are we under an obligation to save lives?’ If so, what is required of us to be a morally decent person? In “The Gift” by Parker we learn that Zell Kravinsky would take a utilitarian approach to this question. Zell would argue that we are under a moral obligation to give discretionary assets, such as spare body parts to maximize good and minimize suffering. Instead Singer proposes in, “Famine Relief Argument” that the minimum we should donate is 10 percent of our income. He provides a more sound argument of what morality requires of us. Lastly, Sponville-Comte author of a book on virtue
…show more content…
We can assume that Zell weighs each moral consideration on a scale and determines which has the best consequences that put happiness over pain with everyone’s wellbeing taken into consideration as equals. By using this Utilitarian method he has defined the limits of generosity to be much greater than that of Peter Singer. Zell would use his scale mechanism and if it’s in favor of donating a kidney, you should donate your kidney. Singer in his paper ‘The Famine Relief Argument’ he argue that the bare minimum generosity requires is 10 percent of one’s income. He states that this is an ethical standard and we are doing wrong by contributing anything less. First, let us define who Singer deems obligated to this minimum standard. He defines a term called ‘absolute poverty’ which should not be confused with relative poverty. Absolute poverty is life at the very margin of existence. Individuals that live in absolute poverty are severely deprived humans in categorizes such as literacy, life expectancy, nutrition, and living conditions that are unimaginable. In comparison, relative poverty is found in industrialized nations when poor citizens are defined by the wealth enjoyed by their neighbors. Another term defined that will aid in this explanation is what we call absolute affluence. Absolute affluence is those who have more wealth than they need to provide themselves with all the basics for life. This type of person you would find shopping for preference, taste, and style not for hunger, warmth, and shelter. Singer indicates that people of absolute affluence are under the ethical standard to give to the absolute
We can assume that Zell weighs each moral consideration on a scale and determines which has the best consequences that put happiness over pain with everyone’s wellbeing taken into consideration as equals. By using this Utilitarian method he has defined the limits of generosity to be much greater than that of Peter Singer. Zell would use his scale mechanism and if it’s in favor of donating a kidney, you should donate your kidney. Singer in his paper ‘The Famine Relief Argument’ he argue that the bare minimum generosity requires is 10 percent of one’s income. He states that this is an ethical standard and we are doing wrong by contributing anything less. First, let us define who Singer deems obligated to this minimum standard. He defines a term called ‘absolute poverty’ which should not be confused with relative poverty. Absolute poverty is life at the very margin of existence. Individuals that live in absolute poverty are severely deprived humans in categorizes such as literacy, life expectancy, nutrition, and living conditions that are unimaginable. In comparison, relative poverty is found in industrialized nations when poor citizens are defined by the wealth enjoyed by their neighbors. Another term defined that will aid in this explanation is what we call absolute affluence. Absolute affluence is those who have more wealth than they need to provide themselves with all the basics for life. This type of person you would find shopping for preference, taste, and style not for hunger, warmth, and shelter. Singer indicates that people of absolute affluence are under the ethical standard to give to the absolute