Utilitarian Philosophers: Dora And Bob Singer
1. The essay claims that human nature is not sufficiently selfish to make it possible that many people will sacrifice so much for a stranger. The facts of human nature which was clearly described by the author using two stories about Dora and Bob. Singer effectively argued the ethical distinction of right and wrong between the acts of Dora who sold a child to organ peddler but later realized and corrected her action, with the action of Bob, who chose to save a valuable old car than the life of a child. Using the two situations both supports different moral judgment and use reader’s emotions to act on saving lives of children by donating money to charitable organizations.
2. Yes, the author was able to persuade me to think that I also have a …show more content…
The author use ethos by claiming he is a utilitarian philosopher. He judges whether acts are wrong or right by their consequences. He further claimed, if the outcome of the American’s failure to donate the money, one more kid dies then there is a troubling incongruity in being quick to condemn other’s action like of Dora, who took a child to an organ peddler for cash.
4. Singer used logos by using information such reasonable estimates that $200 in donation would help a sickly 2-year-old into a healthy 6-year-old. The author voice of authority when he said people with wealth surplus should not buy new stuffs or spend it on luxuries, any money not spent on necessities should be given away to people suffering from poverty so dire to be life threatening. He further logically claimed that a $ 1000 value suit could save the life of 5 children.
5. The author used pathos when he distinguished the value of a child’s life to a vintage car. The money saved for giving up on dining out when donated could help save the lives of kids overseas. He comparably measures people’s sacrifices to a bigger cause on saving kid’s life. Like when he argued, what’s is one month’s dining out, compared to a child’s life. He claimed that the money donated to charitable agencies could mean the difference between life and death for children in
2. Yes, the author was able to persuade me to think that I also have a …show more content…
The author use ethos by claiming he is a utilitarian philosopher. He judges whether acts are wrong or right by their consequences. He further claimed, if the outcome of the American’s failure to donate the money, one more kid dies then there is a troubling incongruity in being quick to condemn other’s action like of Dora, who took a child to an organ peddler for cash.
4. Singer used logos by using information such reasonable estimates that $200 in donation would help a sickly 2-year-old into a healthy 6-year-old. The author voice of authority when he said people with wealth surplus should not buy new stuffs or spend it on luxuries, any money not spent on necessities should be given away to people suffering from poverty so dire to be life threatening. He further logically claimed that a $ 1000 value suit could save the life of 5 children.
5. The author used pathos when he distinguished the value of a child’s life to a vintage car. The money saved for giving up on dining out when donated could help save the lives of kids overseas. He comparably measures people’s sacrifices to a bigger cause on saving kid’s life. Like when he argued, what’s is one month’s dining out, compared to a child’s life. He claimed that the money donated to charitable agencies could mean the difference between life and death for children in