The benefit of the moral theory is a better world for people to live in, though this is an oversimplification, the root of the morality theory is altruism. Meaning that wealth that is spent on luxuries and riches should be given to those in need. It has, to date, given £14,750,000. However, there must be a limit. I will challenge this assumption by modifying his example: There are two people drowning in a pool, one is your cousin. These categories must include practically every teacher and student of philosophy in the universities of the Western world. If we save the Bengal refugees now, others, perhaps the children of these refugees, will face starvation in a few years' time.
If the stakes are an end to widespread starvation, it is worth the risk. Now, according to the natural order instituted by divine providence, material goods are provided for the satisfaction of human needs. We could deny this assumption but in doing so, we would not be honest to ourselves. Singer addresses the issues of why people do not donate. It follows from what I have said earlier that we ought to give money away, rather than spend it on clothes which we do not need to keep us warm.
Peter Singer critiques our ordinary ways of thinking and in spite, very few people have accepted his conclusions. And if everyone is not acting more or less simultaneously, then those giving later will know how much more is needed, and will have no obligation to give more than is necessary to reach this amount. I found an article displaying some of Peter Singers thought experiments that will further help display his beliefs. With this argument is using our moral. The causes of famine are various and include human wrongdoing, but this doesn't matter, according to Singer.
Indeed, the alternative does not occur to them. What, if anything, does morality say one should do about this? The total amount given, from all sources, now stands at about £65,000,000. The issue here is: Where should we draw the line between conduct that is required and conduct that is good although not required, so as to get the best possible result? Nevertheless, when all considerations of this sort have been taken into account, the conclusion remains: we ought to be preventing as much suffering as we can without sacrificing something else of comparable moral importance. Singer then argues that the way that people respond to situations like the one in East Bengal and others like it around the world is morally wrong. There are lots of organisations that work on the issue of population control. Although he presents many sound arguments, the reality.
Singer shares his conviction that those living in luxury should support those struggling to survive in poverty. I shall therefore take as established the principle I asserted earlier. The four bunnies lived with their mother, Mrs. One of these arguments was lack of food. He has strong feeling and ways that he thinks thing should be. The argument for international aid: 1.
Consequentialism, Ethics, Human 1107 Words 4 Pages one person is worth more than another Lillehammer, 2011, p. Suffering is a problem that pervades the world, but it is within human ability to do something about it. Many young children grow up watching Disney films, because they are regarded as ideal family movies to educate our new generation. Other thinkers may become supporters or challengers to another. He argues about how affluent countries react to the issues like Bengal and the way they look at the moral issue surrounding it. Words: 1424 - Pages: 6. The Truman Show is a satirical commentary and talks about how the media is a large influence in our lives.
Although a good and moral outcome may be realized from an action, to base that action solely on the intended consequence of that action, rather than the inherent goodness of the action, one does not insure that the action will result in result in, truly, what is best. According to Illies transcendental argument, human beings have, by their nature, the inherent ability to distinguish between, the concepts of good and bad. The second objection to my attack on the present distinction between duty and charity is one which has from time to time been made against. It is clear that suffering is bad, and if we can alleviate suffering by supporting human rights then we clearly should promote them. Peter Singer, however, proposes a radically different view.
However, this can only happen if everyone gave simultaneously and unexpectedly. Journal of Value Inquiry, 34 2-3 , 263-272. But since we are not under an obligation to give aid unless that aid is likely to be effective in reducing starvation or malnutrition, we are not under an obligation to give aid to countries that make no effort to reduce a rate of population growth that will lead to catastrophe. Despite the limited nature of the revision in our moral conceptual scheme which I am proposing, the revision would, given the extent of both affluence and famine in the world today, have radical implications. Maximizing the good is required from the consequentialist perspective. Singer is not merely saying that it would be commendable to give more to help the destitute.