He invested most of his savings into an expensive car that he doesn’t have insurance on. The car is rising in value, and Bob plans on eventually sell it and live comfortably on the profits. One day, while out for a drive Bob parks the car near some train tracks and goes for a walk. Ahead he sees a runaway train that is headed straight for a small boy further down the tracks. Bob is faced with a choice, throw a switch and divert the train right into his car, losing his investment, or let the train go resulting in the death of the child.
One day Bob finds himself in a situation where he could save the life of a boy who was in the way of train tracks, but in order to do that he would have to sacrifice his car. If he were to not save the boy he car would be unharmed. Bob decided not to sacrifice his car, he has no remorse and will enjoy the car for the rest of his life. As someone is reading this story they would agree that Dora made the better choice. It was selfless, and the right thing to do where as Bob chose the selfish option and did the wrong thing.
However, Mr. Singer shares that he believes that actions should be judged by consequences, and the consequence of both actions is the death of a child. Mr. Singer continues his argument by paraphrasing and example from the works of Peter Unger. In the story, a man named Bob who is close to retirement puts his most of his savings into a rare car which he has not insured. One day Bob is out for a drive and parks his rare car at the end of a railway siding, which later puts him in the position to have to choose between allowing a child to be hit by a train, or throwing the switch and diverting the train which would destroy his rare car. He chooses to save allow the child to die and enjoys the security of owning the car for many years.
After several edge of the seat attempts at stopping the train, including the death of a veteran conductor, Frank and Will finally slow 777 down enough to safely traverse the track through Stanton and eventually stop the train, saving the town and saving the railroad lots more money than they would have lost. Acting: Denzel Washington plays a stellar
If America regulated Singers proposal, it would positively effect peoples morals and the values they place on a life. Singer also Cites Peter Unger “By his calculation, $200 in donations would help a sickly 2-year old transform into a healthy 6-year old” $200 dollars would seem very inexpensive to most to save a life. If every American who could spare $200 to donate overseas, the number of lives saved would be tremendous. This would also create a ripple effect causing Americans to follow those who donate. The cons of Singers proposal is that it is unethical and would drastically change Americas economy and culture.
Sly Chavey Mrs. Wunderle Inventor Research 27 Feb. 2018 The Gas Mask On July 24, 1916, a man struck a pocket of natural gas with a pickaxe in a tunnel and ignited it. The noxious fumes were flowing through the tunnel and choking the miners. No one had the equipment to go into the tunnel and save anyone. They only knew one man that had a chance to rescue these men and so they called him in. This man drove to the site in his pajamas and safety hood and ran into the tunnels to save as many men as he could.
However, Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, actually believes that Hardin is wrong in his claim and that people should spend less money buying unnecessary possessions and rather donate that money to charity. Singer also utilizes the support of a metaphor to strengthen his point, but his metaphor involves a man having to choose between the life of a child or his expensive car that will secure him financially in the future. Singer’s article unveils the manipulative techniques, mainly those that appeal to the emotional and reasoning sides of human beings, that Hardin establishes through the use of rhetoric, particularly his lifeboat metaphor, to express his viewpoint. Singer proposes a
Organ Sales Will Save Lives by Joanna Mackay In the essay Organ sales will save lives by Joana Mackay, Mackay states how the legalization of selling human organs will help to save thousands of lives. Mackay is based on the fact that this will benefit not only the person receiving the organ, but also would help receive money for it. People are waiting for an organ transplant that could save their lives, but due to “laws” that leave out the option of donating organs, these people are usually condemned to death as they wait on a list of donors or a death person to extract the organ they need. Governments “Should not ban the sale of human organs, they should regulate it”(92). She explains how in the third world countries they are illegal organs, trades and people are willing to sell an organ for proximity of $1000.
In "The Singer's Solution to World Poverty" by Peter Singer, he argues that prosperous people should donate to overseas organizations (Oxfam and/or UNICEF) all the money not needed for the basic requirements of life. In other words, whatever money being spent on luxuries, or nonessentials, should be given away to charitable organizations. This solution to world poverty would deem benefiting, but like all propositions this one has its pros and cons. Moreover, donating all the money that is not needed to sustain life could be used more wisely. Peter Singer states that with a mere two hundred dollars an unhealthy two year old child could be raised into a healthy six year old.
While it is a wonderful idea to donate money to the less fortunate children in the world, donating every single bit of extra money is just too demanding. People should have a giving heart but still be entitled to enjoy their luxuries. As mentioned earlier, giving money to help dying children around the world is a great idea because it has its pros. In fact, the most popular advantage of giving to world poverty is just the thought that a child’s life can be saved by simply donating as little as $200. That money goes towards providing food and health care which is a heroic gesture to a dying child.