Famine, affluence, and mortality. Famine is defined as any extreme and general scarcity. Affluence is defined as abundance of money, property, and other material goods; riches; wealth. Mortality is defined as the state or condition of being subject to death; mortal character, nature, or existence. Peter Singer’s argument in “Famine, affluence, and mortality” suggest that the agent which is praiseworthy for giving to charity but not blameworthy for not giving to charity is wrong, and the agent which does not give to charity should be blameworthy instead, establishing charity as a duty (Singer, 1972).
In this essay we will discuss Singer’s goal in this article, and then present Singer’s argument that supports his position; Explain three counter-arguments to Singer’s position that he addresses in the article, and then summarize Singer’s responses to those counter-arguments; Define Singer’s concept of marginal utility, and explain how this concept relates to his argument; Compare how the ideas of duty and charity are different in Singer’s proposed world as opposed to how they are currently used in our society. I will then present my personal response to Singer by developing an argument either in support of Singer’s position, against his position, or somewhere in the middle in relation to his position.
In this article Peter Singers goal is to make his audience aware of the suffering going on in the world due to poverty and natural disasters. Signer also mentions how there are many that are living below poverty. He also address how we should we should be doing more for those who are unable to help themselves.
Vicki hearne vs peter singer comparison essay
A quick comparison to Vicki Hearne’s “What’s Wrong with Animal Rights? ” to Peter Singer’s “Speciesism and Moral Status”, might indicate Hearne’s argument is stronger due to her strategic and effective use of emotional appeals (i. e. pathos). These appeals allow Hearne to connect quickly and easily with her audience. Hearne is also quite clever in terms of stressing her occupation as an animal ...
Peter Singer’s argument in “Famine, affluence, and mortality” suggest that the agent which is praiseworthy for giving to charity but not blameworthy for not giving to charity is wrong, and the agent which does not give to charity should be blameworthy instead, establishing charity as a duty (Singer, 1972).
It is very clear that we live in a selfish society. Singer proves that when he addresses the issue of why people don’t donate. Singer says “If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it.” The issue here is that society is willing to sacrifice. He later explains that “by without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance” I mean without causing anything else comparably bad to happen, or doing something that is wrong in itself, or failing to promote some moral good, comparable in significance to the bad thing that we can prevent.” Many people have the belief that it is the government’s responsibility to provide id when needed. Singer proves that the joint effort of both the citizens and the government is what those in need want and need when experiencing poverty and natural disaster. He says that the reliance on aid is one reason why people do not donate because they believe the society in need will become dependent on that service.
