Global Justice For All: The Ideas Of Peter Singer

Global Justice For All In the United States, 46.2 million people – 15 percent of the population – live in poverty. Meanwhile the richest among us are doing very well. As an affluent person in a world of needy poor, I should probably do more to aid badly off persons around the globe. Many people subscribe to this thought, which prompts guilt and embarrassment. However, the thought readily becomes an extremely demanding vise. What do we owe, as a matter of justice, to distant needy strangers? Does justice require, permit, or prohibit special partiality toward local needy strangers or needy folk who are members of our national community? In this essay I would like to discuss the ideas of Peter Singer from a utilitarian perspective and Richard Miller from a consequentialist …show more content…
Like act consequentialism, the Principle of Sacrifice denies options. One is morally required (when constraints are not in play) to do whatever would bring about the best outcome. One is not morally allowed to choose any course of action that would induce a less than best outcome. If saving the drowning child means getting one’s clothes muddy, this is insignificant because the death of a child would be a very bad thing. Singer maintains that proximity too, doesn’t matter – if the dying child is far away or nearby, one still has the same obligation. And he denies that our individual responsibility can be diffused by the fact that there are lots of others who could also help. Each should help, whether there are others who could help or not. This implies that one must always justify spending money on themself or their friends or family. Whether one is justified in doing so, in this view, depends on whether anything they do for others or themself is of comparable moral importance to saving the lives of others who are starving and lacking in basic