Famine Affluence And Sacrifice By Peter Singer Analysis
Moral duty power to change the world
For those who frightened much to abandon their life, goals, projects and interests in order to save one’s life, say goodbye to righteousness. In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, also in “ the life you can save”, Peter Singer tries to show that we human beings have a moral obligation to give far more than we actually do for excessive and tragic situations such as famine and disaster relief. According to singer, Giving, sharing and helping the needy is more than moral happiness and inner satisfaction, it is a moral duty. As he state his argument in three premises, “1, suffering and death from the lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad, (2), if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, …show more content…
Some people object, that singers position requires us to a great deal for others, and yes that is what morality requires doing great deal for others without causing any moral problem. In the “life you can save “, Singer asked a question to his audience “what should you do?” If you see a drowning young child in the pond and you know you are the only person who could save the drowning child but “you will ruin the new shoes you brought only a few days ago, and get your suite wet and muddy” (singer), Plus you have to change your wet self then be late to work ? Thinking of All those troubles, it might be a little too big to be in this kind of situation in the morning especially on the way of work, but considering the outcome of the sacrifice of the new shoe, the suite, and precious work time going to be more than anything. It’s like sacrificing replaceable thing for one irreplaceable life. It’s easy to get the new shoes back and to fix the ruin suite. Also it sounds heroic to explain to a manager the reason of missing appropriate work time to save a drowning child. I would totally do anything in order to save that child because as singer said “it requires us only to prevent what is bad , and not to promote what is good, and it requires this of us only when we can do it without sacrificing anything that is from the moral point of
For those who frightened much to abandon their life, goals, projects and interests in order to save one’s life, say goodbye to righteousness. In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, also in “ the life you can save”, Peter Singer tries to show that we human beings have a moral obligation to give far more than we actually do for excessive and tragic situations such as famine and disaster relief. According to singer, Giving, sharing and helping the needy is more than moral happiness and inner satisfaction, it is a moral duty. As he state his argument in three premises, “1, suffering and death from the lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad, (2), if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, …show more content…
Some people object, that singers position requires us to a great deal for others, and yes that is what morality requires doing great deal for others without causing any moral problem. In the “life you can save “, Singer asked a question to his audience “what should you do?” If you see a drowning young child in the pond and you know you are the only person who could save the drowning child but “you will ruin the new shoes you brought only a few days ago, and get your suite wet and muddy” (singer), Plus you have to change your wet self then be late to work ? Thinking of All those troubles, it might be a little too big to be in this kind of situation in the morning especially on the way of work, but considering the outcome of the sacrifice of the new shoe, the suite, and precious work time going to be more than anything. It’s like sacrificing replaceable thing for one irreplaceable life. It’s easy to get the new shoes back and to fix the ruin suite. Also it sounds heroic to explain to a manager the reason of missing appropriate work time to save a drowning child. I would totally do anything in order to save that child because as singer said “it requires us only to prevent what is bad , and not to promote what is good, and it requires this of us only when we can do it without sacrificing anything that is from the moral point of