Peter Singer's Argument Analysis

1524 Words7 Pages
Peter Singer’s argument on international aid requires the use of several premises and a single conclusion. Premise 1 begins with his assumption “that suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad” (“Famine, Affluence, and Morality” 231). The negative effects of starvation (e.g., suffering and death) are major evils which could be reduced, if not averted in its entirety. Singer is largely unconcerned with defending the validity of this premise as he believes most people will accept the notion as it stands. While self-evident when observed at the most superficial level, premise 2 of Singer’s argument is among the most challenging areas to deal with. It comprises two versions of the principle of preventing bad occurrences.…show more content…
Recognizing the validity of Singer’s conclusion would necessitate a drastic change to the way we think about matters of charity and morality. The act of giving to charitable organizations would then be regarded as a moral requirement. But this notion is in disagreement with the way that a lot of us think about giving when it comes to different types of relief organizations. A substantial majority of people identify such donations as falling under the realm of supererogatory (e.g., making such donations warrants praise, but there isn’t anything wrong with not doing so). In accordance with Singer’s logic, giving to organizations such as the Bengal Relief Fund should not be thought as an act of generosity that is entirely voluntary. In the same vein, the failure to provide these mandatory offerings would warrant internal and external disapproval. Among Singer’s most contentious points is that engaging with material luxury is a corresponding failure in providing needed assistance to the poor and suffering. Since the brief introduction to Singer’s argument, it seems as though we may only avert drastic revisions to our models of morality by highlighting a considerable flaw in at least one or more of the premises. However, it appears rather challenging to dispute either premise 1 or 3. Any effort to refute premise 1 would be…show more content…
Still, it is important to note that “can” does not imply “ought”. To set up the moral obligation that this aspect requires, Singer must ultimately make a determination that a principle of impartiality exists. Dismissing such a principle would remove the possibility of having obligations at the general level. In opposition to special obligations (e.g., obligations that I have to my family or neighbors but that I do not have to total strangers), general obligations are those that I have to another individual regardless of our relationship status (or lack thereof) (Fiske 25). As soon as a principle of impartiality is established, it stands that one can make a case that we bear a general obligation to provide aid to those in serious need, under the provision that we can do so without procuring an excessive amount of hardship. Singer appears to assume a principle of impartiality somewhat indiscriminately, thus making his argument vulnerable to attack. If one rejects the principle of impartiality from the onset, it is in the cards to reject, first, the notion of general moral obligations, second, premise 2 of Singer’s argument (and more specifically, his claims on proximity), and finally, his subsequent
Show More
Related

  • Peter Singer's Argument Analysis

    1792 Words  | 8 Pages

    Peter Singer is a widely published and known philosopher and ethicist. He has gained attention in recent years due to his controversial views. In this essay I will explore this in the context of his attitude towards end of life decisions – particularly Euthanasia and if it should be legalized in Australia. Singer challenges traditional morality on utilitarian grounds and presents arguments that attempt to justify his views. One argument is a distinction that he draws between a human and a person

    Read More

  • A Canticle For Leibowitz Essay

    2038 Words  | 9 Pages

    confronts many religious themes. I will give a brief summary of the novel and then elaborate on the theory of preference utilitarianism and the view of Peter Singer. Then, I will, explore the role of ethics in the novel in regards to preference utilitarianism, as held by the theorist Peter Singer. Finally, I will draw implications for the reader from my analysis about ethics. A Canticle for Leibowitz A Canticle for Leibowitz follows a monastic order in a post-apocalyptic world as it tries to preserve the

    Read More

  • Richard Ryder's Painism And His Criticism Summary

    1240 Words  | 5 Pages

    concept. In the wider realm, the article, Ryder’s Painism and His Criticism of Utilitarianism, is an examination of the critique of utilitarianism by Ryder. The authors Joost Leuven and Tatjana Visˇak also integrate the ideals of animal liberation by Peter Singer and animal rights by Tom Reagan, where they compare these predominant theories to the theory of Painism by Ryder. The view by Ryder regards the experimentation on animals and critiques the “sentience term” frequently used by Singer. The Painism

    Read More

  • Moral Basis Of Vegetarianism

    1554 Words  | 7 Pages

    In short, the article is a detailed analysis of the arguments of vegetarians. Devine writes that there are two distinct groups of vegetarians: the ones who are against the suffering of animals and the ones who are against the killing of animals. The side against animal suffering will object eating any

    Read More

More about Peter Singer's Argument Analysis

Open Document