With reference to Singer’s statement that, “… prevent evil… without sacrificing something of comparable moral significance”, in as much as the act of helping a friend who is suffering in a critical condition is morally good, in contrast, it is morally wrong to rob people at gun point. It would be sacrificing something of comparable moral significance for another. In other words, it is wrong to do a wrong action because of a right one. Singer also emphasizes the fact that you must be in the position to help. I think is a plausible idea since you cannot give what you do not have.
G.E Moore argued against Ethical Naturalism as he believed that defining concepts such as ‘good’ are impossible and any attempt to define ‘good’ is to commit The Naturalistic Fallacy. The Naturalistic Fallacy is one of the main criticisms of Ethical Naturalism and would therefore suggest that ethical language is not very meaningful as it cannot be correctly defined. Moore believed there are moral properties, so ethical language is not completely devoid of meaning but it is limited as ‘good’ is a non-natural property which cannot be defined. Moore disagreed that ethical language could prove whether something is moral or
In the hard determinist’s judgement, this feeling of freedom is an illusion. (Pereboom, 2009:324). Another argument against hard determinism would be if it were true we could not be accounted for when it comes to our actions, therefore we could do a morally wrong act and if it was determined then we would could not to blame, we did not have the free will to do that act it was determined to be done anyway. Also if we do a morally good act should we be praised for this? Hard determinists would say that it was not our free will that chose us to do this good act we were determined to do it anyway.
Of the remaining criteria we might consider, only sentience―the capacity of a being to experience things like pleasure and pain―is a plausible criterion of moral importance. Singer argues for this in two ways. First, he argues, by example, that the other criteria are bad, because (again) they will exclude people who we think ought not be excluded. For instance, we don't really think that it would be permissible to disregard the well-being of someone who has much lower intelligence than average, so we can't possibly think that intelligence is a suitable criterion for moral consideration. Second, he argues that it is only by virtue of something being sentient that it can be said to have interests at all, so this places sentience in a different category than the other criteria: "The capacity for suffering and enjoying things is a prerequisite for having interests at all, a condition that must be satisfied before we can speak of interests in any meaningful way" (175).
I previously stated death and suffering from malnutrition are bad, therefore if we can prevent famine without harming ourselves we ought to do it. Ought is a misleading term so I am going to replace it with “morally obliged”. The logical force driving Singer’s construction of his second premise is simply if an individual has the ability to prevent something bad from happening without causing comparable damage and loss of moral integrity, the individual has a duty as a human being living on earth to do
‘’Singer’s view of our obligation to help relieve the suffering of people in distant nations.’’ In this paper, I’m going to argue that Singer’s view of our obligation to help relieve the suffering of people in distant nations are right because, if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it. The fundamental defect of Singer's argument is that, given our experience of human nature, he sets the moral bar at an impossibly high level. Very few of us readily would or could live up to the standard he asks of us. If society attempted to set its moral standards at Singer's level, we can predict one of three consequences. If his standard
Dissect the four-part definition of “sacred” in terms of its strengths and weaknesses. Set apart-The strength is that the sacred is holy which I support and should not be mixed with worldly staff on the other hand its weak because all things set apart do not necessarily mean they are sacred. Beyond what human can violate-The strength is that human beings cannot affect the nature of it in terms of origin and birth. They cannot kill it because of the nature associated to it. On the other hand its weakness is that human can affect it in other aspects besides deathless and birth less nature but in definition they do not recognize that.
Two ethical theories I will compare and contrast in this essay are: Moral Egoism and Utilitarianism. Moral egoism is the belief that an action is only morally justified if the consequences of the action are more favorable than unfavorable to the person or group performing the action. Under the strictest philosophy of moral egoism, rape, murder, theft, dishonesty, and many other things most people consider immoral, are justified. It is always correct for a person to do what is in their self-interest, even if it harms someone else. A person cannot do “whatever they like” because in many cases that would include things that are actually not beneficial to them.
“Modest Proposal” verses “Lifeboat Ethics” First of all, making life decisions for others cannot manipulate the world to become equal. Society has moral obligations toward poverty. Usually the moral obligation to others starts with the intense poverty issue. By reading Jonathan Swift and Garrett Hardin’s articles, the solutions for poverty seem to be easier than ones’ expectation by slaughtering or leaving refugees behind the social norms. Nonetheless, both articles are idealistic.
That means we may say we're all about doing the right thing -- and even believe it. But when doing the right thing has too many negative consequences for us, we may reframe the situation to favor our own interests. We find a way to justify our self-serving decisions. Sounds like Penn State's leaders, doesn't it? It's why this statement from the Freeh Report is so haunting: "Although concern to treat the child abuser humanely was expressly stated, no such sentiments were ever expressed by them for Sandusky's victims."