Phi 208 week 2 assignment
Name
PHI208: Ethics and Moral Reasoning
Peter Singer – “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”
Instructor:
Date
In reading the Peter Singer – “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” article I believe his argument is to help those in need. He has a lot of good points and I think he does a good job in arguing and defending from different perspectives. And in doing this makes it easier for the reader to see both sides. Singer’s argument to help others with food and shelter, as long as we are not sacrificing anything morally significant then it is in our power to help others in need. Singer also makes points on giving to charities and assuming others will give so I don’t need to give. Or giving in the aspect or thought that others will not give. He wants us all to give within our means and help others without doing damage to our own family or putting ourselves in a hardship.
Singer argues the fact that most of us help out or would be more likely to help out someone near us. But he argues why not help others even if they are far. Why only help those who are near us. The fact that a person is physically near to us, so that we have personal contact with him, may make it more likely that we shall assist him, but this does not show that we ought to help him rather than another who happens to be further away. If we accept any principle of impartiality, universalizability, equality, or whatever, we cannot discriminate against someone merely because he is far away from us (or we are far away from him). Singer argues the two sides of giving. If I give this much then so will everyone else so I don’t need to give or the other side of the argument, I will give this much but what if others do not then it will not help as much as if more people give. Stated in the article, “It might be thought that this argument has an absurd consequence. Since the situation appears to be that very few people are likely to give substantial amounts, it
PHI208: Ethics and Moral Reasoning
Peter Singer – “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”
Instructor:
Date
In reading the Peter Singer – “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” article I believe his argument is to help those in need. He has a lot of good points and I think he does a good job in arguing and defending from different perspectives. And in doing this makes it easier for the reader to see both sides. Singer’s argument to help others with food and shelter, as long as we are not sacrificing anything morally significant then it is in our power to help others in need. Singer also makes points on giving to charities and assuming others will give so I don’t need to give. Or giving in the aspect or thought that others will not give. He wants us all to give within our means and help others without doing damage to our own family or putting ourselves in a hardship.
Singer argues the fact that most of us help out or would be more likely to help out someone near us. But he argues why not help others even if they are far. Why only help those who are near us. The fact that a person is physically near to us, so that we have personal contact with him, may make it more likely that we shall assist him, but this does not show that we ought to help him rather than another who happens to be further away. If we accept any principle of impartiality, universalizability, equality, or whatever, we cannot discriminate against someone merely because he is far away from us (or we are far away from him). Singer argues the two sides of giving. If I give this much then so will everyone else so I don’t need to give or the other side of the argument, I will give this much but what if others do not then it will not help as much as if more people give. Stated in the article, “It might be thought that this argument has an absurd consequence. Since the situation appears to be that very few people are likely to give substantial amounts, it