We have the capabilities to eliminate the suffering, however, we choose not to, which is morally wrong. In keeping with this thought, Singer proposes two principles; the strong Singer principle and the weak Singer principle. His strong principle states, “If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance , we ought, we ought, morally, to do it.” In comparison, his weak principle states, “If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening , without sacrificing anything morally significant , we ought, morally, to do it.
He pleads with mankind, “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 so (Singer, 1972).” Basically he is saying that if it is in the power of any man to lend a hand to those less fortunate then it is their responsibility to be that hand. We have a moral obligation to help those in need when we can. Singer believes that the countries around the world that are better off than East Bengal should be helping. He states that there is a dire need for money from other countries to keep the people of East Bengal alive and well. The estimated cost for keeping refugees in East Bengal alive for one year is 464,000,000 euro, yet the amount given only amounts to about 65,000,000 euro (Singer, 1972).
The principal has two versions: strong and moderate. According to the strong version, he thinks that if people have power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything of “comparable moral importance”, then people ought to do it (Singer, 1972 p231). In this statement the key word is “comparable”, Singer wants to show
An imperfect duty however, will not result negatively if not satisfied. On the other hand, if one fulfills an imperfect duty, such as giving away unused clothing to the homeless, his efforts could earn him the respect of others because these actions are not required for a logical existence of humanity. I think that Immanuel Kant has developed a very thorough, yet unrealistic basis for moral philosophy. In a perfect world, Kantian ethics might be a viable concept. Unfortunately, we live in a world with such infinite possibilities of beliefs and lifestyles that Kantianism, a model that holds an extremely narrow definition of right and wrong, is just not practical.
I do not believe every action we take is intended to be self rewarding. For example, saving a drowning child most people would not think of doing it to feel self rewarded, but think quickly to help the child in need then later feel self rewarded. Therefore, their main purpose is to help someone in need not for self- interest. Ethical Egoism also fails as a moral theory because
The case for being a pacifist “There are many causes I would die for. There is not a single cause I would kill for.” ― Mahatma Gandhi “First, it must be emphasized that nonviolent resistance is not a method for cowards; it does resist. If one uses this method because he is afraid or merely because he lacks the instruments of violence, he is not truly nonviolent…. A second basic fact that characterizes nonviolence is that it does not seek to defeat or humiliate the opponent, but to win his friendship and understanding….The end is redemption and reconciliation. The aftermath of nonviolence is the creation of the beloved community, while the aftermath of violence is tragic bitterness.” Martin Luther King, Jr Nowadays, pacifism is not popular.
In other way we can state that it is always moral to promote self-interest and it is not moral not to promote it. So it is a moral duty of every person to pursue his or her own interest. According to Ethical Egoism, there is only one ultimate principle of conduct, the principle of self-interest, and this principle sums up all of one’s natural duties and obligations. The only way, through which you can help others, according to Ethical Egoism, if it is in someone’s best interest to help others. Ethical Egoism talks only about the self-interest which is better for the person over long run.
Volunteering has no universal definition, so everyone is required to interpret it as they wish. We are all volunteers. (Pathos) We all may not (Anastrophe, scheme) have the same definition, but that does not make one volunteers’ efforts more heroic than others. Some people may be hesitant to begin volunteering because they believe they need to save the world (Hyperbole, trope) when in reality, the small scale help they can provide in their own community is just as valuable. Many people may believe it is only necessary to volunteer and help out in their community in dire situations.
Some simply believe it is absolutely wrong for one person to walk around with another dead person’s liver etc. Therefore, you can imagine reactions to animal organ transplants. Even people who accept organ donation can see this as a wrong thing to do, without being religious or following your culture. It may simply seem unacceptable and this is not necesserily effected by the media but it my be like a voice inside of you telling you that this is wrong. However others see it as just another organ that can save a persons live no matter where it came from.
Twain finds it important for the youth to realize that they must begin thinking for themselves rather than listening to those in authority or simply just others in general. Moral lessons may be taught or realized by self, and does not necessarily have to be swallowed by teachers, parents, etcetera. In this satire, Twain gives the solid, moral advice to listen to yourself rather than take on moral lessons from others, as what seems to be the truth does not always prevail. From the satire, one realizes that Twain truly believes in moral behavior, as he jokes that he has not learned how to "practice this gracious and beautiful art." And art it is, not reality.