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).
While there are some objections to Singer’s position, the essay is critically acclaimed in the field of ethics. Singer brings to light the harsh reality of how little we really give, in comparison with what we are capable of giving to help those in need around the globe. His argument suggests that the “whole way we look at moral issues-our moral conceptual theme-needs to be altered”. Singer’s basic example involves the thought that starvation and other famine related deaths are forms of suffering. We have the capabilities to eliminate the suffering, however, we choose not to, which is morally wrong.
Truth is, yes bi companies make a lot of money from third world countries who can’t sustain their crop from floods and yes it may not seem like a natural food of source but it is altered in a way in which it is stronger and produces more nutrients for us to receive. The dilema I would face is that it is simply a not natural source of food on an energetic level. Human/Animal organ donation: There are many ethical issues concerning this topic; religious, cultural and self belief. Some believe it is wrong to even cut open a human where others believe it is wrong to give away your organs even after your sudden death. Some simply believe it is absolutely wrong for one person to walk around with another dead person’s liver etc.
Without compassion and a moral conscience we would not act on the obligations that arise out of considerations of justice. To develop my argument I will commence with some statistics about the state of global poverty to highlight what why exactly we feel obliged to help. I will then discuss Singer’s idea that we have a moral obligation to help others, through the justified behaviour of sacrificing certain aspects of our own lives. Onora O’Neill’s ‘lifeboat earth’ demonstrates the idea of having a right not to be killed and that by not helping others we are indirectly killing them. This is an idea of considerations of justice, relating to the rights of human beings.
She makes the argument sound trivial, when she says that education can be provided to each donor about their choices. She then goes on to ask: “Besides, how unfair is it to poor people if compensation enhances their quality of life?”(133). With this question she seems to dismiss the chance that a poor person might be exploited, as if it was nothing to worry about. She also mentions the distastefulness one might feel towards the business of selling and buying organs. She simply rebuts that one needs to have a better reason to not save a life than to just be ethically disgusted.
Prioritizing means that one particular situation is the only one in concern before all other situations. Prioritizing poverty means forgetting about HIV/Aids, diabetes, but more importantly environmental protection. That comes to our definition of protection. Protecting ourselves from something means we are only doing things to help prevent something bad from happening. It does not mean we are eliminating the situation.
(p. 131). This makes sense, until one considers the purpose of a lifeboat: a boat which saves lives. One could argue that the poor, outside the lifeboat, will die, and it is more likely that they will die than will rich people. However, unlike getting out of a lifeboat, the mere transition of becoming poor (or even less rich) will not kill someone. To premise an entire article on a shoddy metaphor necessarily weakens the point made by said metaphor.
Singer’s argument could be altered slightly to support the Millennium Development Goal of eradicating extreme poverty and hunger. Singer argues that suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad; this argument is a strong and valid argument that is hard to deny, and it also supports the first Millennium Development Goal. Singer also argues that ‘anything we can do to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, is something we ought, morally, to do.’ This argument also supports the first MDG and is a valid argument but it is also weak because it could be disputed by other views and or obligations. Singer could alter this argument to argue that; In order to prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care, it is up to those of us who can afford to take on the responsibility and obligations of helping the poor, to do so in order to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger. Altering Singer’s original argument makes it less weak and also makes the premises more plausible because it allows the reader to put him/her self into the picture, and to overall convince those people to fell obligated to help with famine relief.
Different people are committed to their own unique values and therefore react differently to a proposal that will likely have an effect on their lives; positively, negatively or simply indifferently. In order to convince an entire society of people that something is for the greater good, different areas of concern must be addressed in order to satisfy each member and their different values. A reduction and eventual nationwide ban on pesticide use will effect our society on both a social level and economic level, but it is the only option if we wish to live in a cleaner, safer world. The problem is that, as much as people value their health they also value their manicured lawns, an abundant food supply and low prices on their fruits and vegetables. The question is: do the positive effects of banning pesticide use outweigh the negative effects?
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.