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).
| | My ethical position for the world hunger is the moral relativism because it offers no moral guidance. It merely tells us that any particular action would be approved by one group, but denounced by another.The world hunger is a very broad and controversial issue but let's start with some questions:What should those of us in affluent nations do to help impoverished countries and individuals, especially those facing episodic or endemic hunger? It just slightly changes it. We should now ask: “Are we obliged to insure that they have adequate food entitlements?” That requires us to ask several derivative questions: do we have obligations to encourage (or coerce) their governments to enhance their entitlements? Are we obligated to establish ongoing trade relations with these countries to enhance their citizens’ entitlements?Do we have obligations to send food or to help distribute food when the country cannot do so on its own?
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.
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.
11 11 Arguments about Singer’s Principal Lingyan Mao PHIL 2290 DR. Meena Krishnamurthy December 3, 2013 Arguments about Singer’s Principal Lingyan Mao PHIL 2290 DR. Meena Krishnamurthy December 3, 2013 Arguments about Singer’s Principal In Peter Singer’s (1972) article “Famine, Affluence and Morality”, he puts forward the principal of sacrifice. It has two versions, one is strong and the other is moderate and I will explain both in this essay. Furthermore, he also considers affluent people’s obligation and differences between charity and duty, which I will include in my essay, as well. In addition, I will present and analyze one objection clearly and give Singer’s response. Finally I will give my opinion about the objection.
An example that Singer gives on this point is that if he walks by a pond and sees a child drowning, he should feel obligated to go in and pull the child out (1972). While I agree that you should not let a child drown if you can prevent it, I do not agree that providing famine relief should be an obligation. Singer writes about objections to his position on famine relief. One argument to Singer’s position is that it might be too drastic of a revision for our moral beliefs. People do not
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.
This is in direct violation with David Hume’s stance on morality. Hume writes that it is desire rather than reason that governs human behavior and that, “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions.” Kant’s conception of duty is based on the notion that all good ought to be done because they are intrinsically good. Duty for Kant is a basis of moral law. For example, one ought to preserve their own life or help feed the homeless because it is their societal duty to do so, not because they want to or that doing so makes them feel good. In fact, according to Kant, a person who hates helping others but does so anyways because they see it as their societal duty is a good moral agent.
The perspective of subjectivism is the viewing of ethical situations as a reflection of what the beholder agrees to (Mackie, 1990: 17). Perspectives of egoism and Subjectivism assist in the interpretation of the fable of ‘Education as a Commodity’. Interpretation Ethical egoists wouldn’t ‘sacrifice his own good for the good of others’ (Regis, 1980: 60), but would value volunteering in this fable and the actions of Deidre, as being enriching to both, the volunteer; and who they volunteer for. To many egoists, volunteering work, purely for altruistic reasons is unfeasible, as altruism can be interpreted as ‘masking’ the actions of self-interest (MacIntyre, 1967: 466). If the true nature of volunteering is altruistic, pure subjectiveness would exclude egoism theories acknowledging these actions as anything other than egotistical in nature.
However, DCT defines morality and a god’s command is needed when distinguishing the value of the moral actions because the value of good can be taken in any form and not all uses of the term ‘good’ would lead to a moral action. Likewise, it would not be immoral if one makes a bad decision in career paths like to not play rugby for a career even when the chances of making the All Blacks is highly possible, for there is no act of evil in the wasting of talent. This interpretation difference in ‘good’ and ‘bad’