Peter Singer Utilitarianism

Peter Albert David Singer is an Australian moral philosopher who was born in 1946, one of his main goals is to end world poverty by donating to charities and convincing others to do the same, and he believes that affluent people should donate all disposable income to charity. Nel Noddings is an American philosopher born in 1929, and her view on ethics focuses on a natural sense of caring and a flexibility of principles, she rejects Singer’s argument saying that we have obligations to those around us and that it is unrealistic for us to try to help everyone. In this essay, I will explain and elaborate the fundamentals of each philosopher’s ethical views, compare and contrast their differences, and give my own opinion on the subject, supporting it with evidence and reasoning. Peter Singer’s main argument is that “It is indefensible for affluent people to spend money on luxuries
Singer goes on to say this in many different ways, the most simple being that anybody that has disposable income(in particular: Americans) should donate money that is not used for the bare necessities to survive to charities in order to help people that are dying of easily treatable illnesses or situations. This mentality highlights Singer’s utilitarian approach to ethics, with affluent people giving up things that are not necessary to survive to help as many people who are struggling to survive in developing countries; causing the least suffering while creating the most happiness. Singer uses the compelling example of Dora, a retired schoolteacher who tricks a homeless boy into going to a place where he is abducted and used for organ harvesting. We know that Dora is given a $1,000 incentive to do so, but we are unaware if she knows the reality of what will happen to the boy. Singer’s motive for using this story is to show the parallel between Dora’s situation and the situation of affluent people deciding whether or not to donate to help dying people. The parallel