Peter Singer Analysis
We are all murders. We spend our money on lavish items we don’t really need. Have you ever bought an item for your own self enjoyment: concert tickets, iPhones, Jordans, Pizza ? If you answered “yes” to any of the above, then Peter Singer, utilitarian moral philosopher, would equate your actions to letting “a runaway train hurtle towards an unsuspecting child” (Singer 4). Though the prospect of not donating our extra funds to charities sounds selfish and egocentric. We are not monsters. In a sense, Singer is correct. Currently, every person who lives in an affluent country has the ability to donate to charity. Yet, everyone has their own problems and issues. It is unjust to hold everyone to such high moral standards: failing to donate money
…show more content…
However, the way money is used dictates whether it is moral or immoral. Singer’s major argument revolves the comparison of two different scenarios. The first scenario revolves a woman named “ Dora” in the Brazilian film “ Central Station” is given a lucrative proposition: convince a homeless boy to follow an address to supposedly get adopted. In return, Dora would receive one thousand dollars in which she used to buy a nice Tv. Unknowingly, the homeless boy was too old for the family that wanted to adopt him, and the dealer wanted to sell the boy’s organs. Dora decides to rescue the boy knowing that the money she received was wrong. Singer uses the movie in order to understand her choice and motivation. Generally, most people would agree that what Dora did was just in order to make amends for her mistake, Nevertheless, Singer presents the moral dilemma of everyday people being equal not to Dora, but Bob. Bob decides to let a child die in order to save his Bugatti. Singer says everyday people use their money on unnecessary items we’re just like Bob. Yet, the comparison of the audience to Bob is faulty. When people buy items like playstations, wii’s, and other stuff it is not at the expense at the death of a child. It is unnecessary and unfair to compare everyday spending that fuels most economies excessive. In Bob’s situation, he had the ability to save the child, but chose otherwise. The act to choose a materialistic object at the expense of a child’s life is morally corrupt. Yet, the philosophy which “ one who judges whether acts are right or wrong by their
However, the way money is used dictates whether it is moral or immoral. Singer’s major argument revolves the comparison of two different scenarios. The first scenario revolves a woman named “ Dora” in the Brazilian film “ Central Station” is given a lucrative proposition: convince a homeless boy to follow an address to supposedly get adopted. In return, Dora would receive one thousand dollars in which she used to buy a nice Tv. Unknowingly, the homeless boy was too old for the family that wanted to adopt him, and the dealer wanted to sell the boy’s organs. Dora decides to rescue the boy knowing that the money she received was wrong. Singer uses the movie in order to understand her choice and motivation. Generally, most people would agree that what Dora did was just in order to make amends for her mistake, Nevertheless, Singer presents the moral dilemma of everyday people being equal not to Dora, but Bob. Bob decides to let a child die in order to save his Bugatti. Singer says everyday people use their money on unnecessary items we’re just like Bob. Yet, the comparison of the audience to Bob is faulty. When people buy items like playstations, wii’s, and other stuff it is not at the expense at the death of a child. It is unnecessary and unfair to compare everyday spending that fuels most economies excessive. In Bob’s situation, he had the ability to save the child, but chose otherwise. The act to choose a materialistic object at the expense of a child’s life is morally corrupt. Yet, the philosophy which “ one who judges whether acts are right or wrong by their