Singer argues that 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” (Singer, 1972). All throughout his article Singer is arguing that those who have enough to sustain their needs and the needs of those dependent upon them should indeed give maximally or at the very least increase the amount of aid that they are currently giving to help prevent the suffering of those who lack shelter, food, and medicine (Singer, 1972). He does not allow people to excuse themselves from the responsibility of lessening the suffering of others because of their distance from the problem nor “the number of people who are in the same situation” to help prevent the problem (Singer,
The conscious decision is good in itself because the decision was not inclined by any desire but the duty to do what is intrinsically good. The volition will always have an intrinsic good, no matter what the inclination is. Kant claims that an inclination for an action cannot be respected as good, because it is not connected to the principle of good will, only the effect of the action. The notion of duty, “the necessity of acting from respect for law” (P.2), plays an important role in Kant’s moral philosophy. The action of duty must exclude the influence of inclination so it may only be influenced by the objectivity of the law and therefore subjectively respected by us as good.
“Compare and Contrast intuitionism and Emotivism” Both Intuitionism and Emotivism are meta-ethical concepts to explain the terms “good” and “bad” without being caught in the naturalistic fallacy described by GE Moore. Moore’s theory states that good cannot be categorised in any physical manner as theories – but instead “good” can not be defined in terms of anything but itself, and following this through to a moral theory we can conclude “that neither science nor religion can establish the basic principles of morality.” Intuitionism holds that there are objective moral truths, but rather than reasoning or deducing these truths, they are self evident to the “mature” mind. Moore contends that just as we know there is a world out there, we know objective moral truths – they are just common sense or intuition. These truths are universal and beyond human experience and reasoning, and from them we gain our sense of what is “good” and what is “bad”. Moore would say we can see these self evident truths when, in an argument, we are reduced to “it’s just wrong,” they require no further explanation, proof or justification.
Joseph Fletcher a theologian, who first articulated situation ethics through the bases of absolute love, agape. He believed that there are no universal moral rules because each case and situation is unique and therefore deserves a unique solution or approach. His ethical theory was based on the six fundamental principles; the first principle is that ‘love only is always good’ which is the belief that “Only one ‘thing’ is intrinsically good; namely, love: nothing else at all.” This belief that nothing else has intrinsic values, allows flexibility of a moral decision. For example a lie isn’t intrinsically wrong; it’s wrong if it hurts someone but it can be right if it’s for the “best interests” of that person. This explains why Fletcher strongly disagrees with Intrinsic Fallacy which asserts that ‘good’ or ‘bad’ properties are in the actions e.g.
Cleante’s ideological views, while enlightening, are often ignored by those who are directly in conflict with Tartuffe’s character, thus Cleante must exercise rationality at every chance he gets. Molière’s inclusion of Cleante, along with Dorine, eventually creates a foundation upon which Orgon’s family, as a whole, views Tartuffe as a hypocrite. This foundation is critical to the exposure to Tartuffe’s true nature. Cleante’s firm stance on reason can be attributed to his desire to avoid violence at all costs. Not only does Cleante assume it his duty to avoid conflict, he also attempts to persuade the other characters to view the situation from his neutral standpoint – one of which allows him to judge without bias.
In this article the author sets out to prove that as human beings we have not made the necessary decisions in order to help those in need (Singer). Singer feels that giving to people in need is the only ethical thing to do regardless of the excuses we come up with to get out of doing so. The example he uses to plead his case is the famine in East Bengal. In his writings Singer states that there was no particular reason for choosing this plague other then the fact that it was currently happening and that due to its publicity this event can’t be over looked (Singer). To prove his point the author brings up the fact that government s such as the British and Australians put more effort into beautification than into the welfare of those suffering.
I learn from past mistakes as well as building on past successes. I value other people’s rights and expect them to maintain their responsibilities as much as I do. However, I would never ask someone to do something I would not do. For example, I would not ask someone to give me the answers to a test because I would not do that myself. My ethical blind spot is my belief that motive justifies the method or overconfidence in the process.
Poverty is a huge problem worldwide, especially among innocent children who have no control over their situation. Australian philosopher Peter Singer, professor of bioethics in the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University, and a professor in the Center for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne in Australia, gives a stunning argument in his essay The Singer Solution the World Poverty. In his essay he is in favor of Americans donating more money to organizations that help children suffering from poverty. He argues that all luxury items should be sacrificed to save human life. If you are living a luxurious life while others suffer, then you are failing to live a morally decent life.
The connection between critical thinking and ethics is that there are no general hard and fast rules regarding the application of ethics in various situations, which is especially pertinent considering the fact that what may be ethical in one situation may be considered unethical in another context. I use my reasoning skills (rationality) to determine both the universal rules that each person should follow (autonomy)and the process that will assure fairness and justice for all in the community. My blind spot my belief that motive justifies method or overconfidence in process. I believe that a consistent process results in a just outcome for all, I sometimes trust the process too much. Ethics plays a very important role in a professional setting.
I don’t think that these things can affect the way and individual works! I do believe in equal opportunity! #3- Is it right to manipulate people into doing what you want if you believe it is for their own