Singer makes a very strong argument about the morality and obligation of charity. The basic argument is that affluent countries cannot justify not aiding countries in need and that the moral issue is corrupt. He makes clear assumptions that allow him to make explicit examples to add validity to his point. When he states,” if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it. 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.” He addresses the counter argument of self-preservation. In another point he states the global view, where the problem is too far away. He adds strength to his argument that states the problem isn’t so far anymore because of technology and transportation.
Peter Singer makes a very strong argument in his article. His basic argument is that “the way people in relatively affluent countries react to a situation like that in Bengal cannot be justified”, and that the way people view the morality of the issue “needs to be altered”. He references the world as a “global village”, in which it is just as easy to help someone in Bengal as it is to help someone on your own block, therefore giving people a reason to support each other. He makes many points (some philosophical, some practical) about the topics he presents, and goes into detail with lots of support to back up what he is saying. He further explains each point by analyzing what he states. Again, Singer presents a solid argument through his abundance of support and clarity.
Famine, Affluence, and Morality written by Peter Singer argues that the people and countries that are “relatively affluent” are unjustified in terms of moral issues and the way of life these people have taken for granted. The strength of Peter Singers argument is well stated and mildly strong. While Peter Singer’s points may be arguable, he provides rebuttals to such oppositions with adequate explanation. For example, he addresses the objection of his argument “…simply that it is too drastic of our moral scheme.” He clarifies and argues in rebuttal that “From the point of view of a particular society, it is essential to prevent violations of norms against killing, stealing, and so on. It is quite inessential, however, to help people outside one's own society.” In his rebuttal he relates the two with the moral norms in affluent cultures with those of others and himself suggesting that helping others is also morally correct. Peter Singer creates a simple argument and uses sufficient evidence and rebuttals to different objections that allows for a reader to become even more convinced. Another tool that Peter Singer uses throughout his article is the necessary repetitiveness continuously circling back to his arguments and points, tying them together, refreshing the readers mind about each point after explaining, and giving examples.
Singer made a convincible argument that “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.” He set several premises about helping famine. The idea of “Global village” avoid people from saying they should help the people nearby instead of thousands miles away, because of the technological advancements. He used logical argument to convinced people that they should everyone else in similar circumstances ought to give as much as possible. He also clarifies that the distinction of duty and charity.
-Singer’s argument: “Although Britain is providing money to stop people from starving, it is not enough. The amount being spent to aid the people in Bengal is very small compared to that on the development of supersonic transportation. The world prioritizes technology over people’s lives. The contrast between the amounts of money being spent on the two different fields shows how immoral the world is.”
-Counter Argument to that of Singer’s (reason not to give assistance): The affluent countries concentrate more on helping themselves while they can provide aid to the poor countries, so that they don’t become one of those poor countries that need aid. Using money for the country itself stops the increase in number of people from suffering in general.
Peter Singer argues in his article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” that people who have a good economic income should help others that are poor or are starving. One of the examples he gives is that “if everyone in the same circumstances like mine gave 5 pounds to the Bengal Relief Fund” it would help give them food, shelters and medical care. The issue is that, Bengal is not the only place in the world with hunger problems, so this will just be a solution to a minimum part of the problem. Throughout the article, the author gives several strong examples that support his main argument, which is that countries with a higher economic fluency should donate to countries that have starvation problems. Additionally, the strength of his arguments is that he makes people feel guilty of the current situation of countries. The author successfully transfers and convinces the audience about his idea and arguments. If a reader does not analyze the article carefully, one will easily be convinced by his opinions. However if a reader analyzes the arguments he will find that paradoxes lie within the argument of the author.
What is singer's Basic argument? Peter Singer basically argues that individuals who are able to donate money to resolve starvation and famine problems in many poor areas of the world must do so. His main points are that death by starvation is bad, and people with financial ability ought to provide their money unless doing so creates another mishap. In addition, he argues that proximity or distance should not be considered when giving out money. Singer argues that helping out your neighbor is more likely than giving money to people on far countries, but both activities are equally moral. What is the strength of his argument? Given both the length and depth of his arguments, Peter Singer seems to be convincing to many of his readers strongly. However, he never convinced me. To justify his argument, Singer redefines the term ‘morality’ and frequently uses the phrase ‘ought to’. What do these word and phrase mean to people anyway? The definition and application of morality are so broad that it is impossible to urge other people to follow a certain person’s beliefs. Singer says that it is moral for people to help out when they can, but what does he mean by the phrase when they can? Should I give out my money to poor people in Bengal rather than to buy a Papa’s meal when I desperately want to eat Monday calzone? Some people might say that I am a cold person if I do not give my money to starving people, but I can hardly do anything if I consider all starving people in the world every time I try to use my money. Should I not eat out with my friends on my birthday because there are starving people on the other side of the Earth? Should I quit getting soda from the vending machine because some people somewhere on the Earth are dying from thirst? What can I do if I keep thinking about these people suffering within their own circumstances? Saving lives and helping starving people are great, but I am not Jesus and cannot sacrifice my life for the well-being of others. Furthermore, I should determine what I ought to do. I ought to go to a top U.S. college which will cost me around $40,000. However, because there are starving people in Africa, should I just attend a community college that will cost me much less tuition and donate the money saved to the starving Africans? As Singer himself argued, this is a situation that creates a new mishap by trying to prevent the original mishap. Therefore, I have my right not to spend my money on things that are relatively less important to me. To take away strength from his arguments, Singer also uses an appeal to emotion. By defining morality in his way and telling people what they ought to do in regard to the situation in East Bengal, he implicitly claims that we are killing those Africans if we do not give out money while we can. However, it is not our fault that people are dying in Africa. It is neither our government’s responsibility. What is the government of East Bengal for? Of course, the U.S. government is much wealthier than the one in East Bengal, but American government has its own areas of expenditure such as Social Security and health care. For these stated reasons and many more, I state that Peter Singer’s argument has no strength to convince me to take a penny out of my pocket.
Singer makes a strong argument about the moral reasons of why we should help others. He is able to bring up good points, for example he says “neither our distance from a preventable evil nor the number of other people who, in respect to that evil, are in the same situation as we are, lessens our obligation to mitigate or prevent that evil.” He speaks that it is our moral duty to help the people around us, rather they be ten feet away or on the other side of the world. In the article he says that people are more likely to help someone who is right next to them, than someone that is two-thousand miles away. But he shows the reader that this idea is not just, and that distance should not make a difference to who we help, and don’t help. But this leads back to Singer’s main argument, “if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything else morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it.” Making this argument seems logical, and will greatly influence the way people think, when it comes to helping others. Singer is able to show us why we should help, even though we are on the other side of the world. He also addresses the counter argument, but the way he phrases the words, just makes his argument seem stronger. That is again why, I believe Singer has made a strong argument.
The main idea brought up by Peter Singer in his article is that the reaction of affluent countries in aiding relatively poor countries that suffer from hunger is not justifies and “needs to be altered”. First he start with analyzing the case in England, in which he strongly questioned the extent of financial aid and work the British government had put in solving this problem. Then he raised the case of Bengal as an example and he described the whole world as a “global village”, which suggests that aiding other countries in the world does not have any technological difficulties for affluent countries. Also, Singer led this issue to a level of morality. He started viewing this incidence from a more ethical point of view. He indicated that such action is to avoid “something bad from happening” and it is not costing “anything of comparable moral importance” so “we ought, morally, to do it.”
Peter Singer argument is that of acting out ethical deeds can go a long way in helping out another country that is starving and going through such a prolonged time of pestilence and dearth. He makes a great argument on how much money countries could raise money to support Bengal if they would just be willing to do so. One part stuck out that really emphasized his point in the beginning and eventually throughout the document,"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". His arguments are exceptionally strong, clever and valid not only through his articulate vocabulary and language but how he tackles his counter arguments of topics such as self-preservation or distance. Overall his argument is rational and easy for others to understand because all it takes is to be a person of moral.
“I shall argue that the way people in relatively affluent countries react to a situation like that in Bengal cannot be justified”—concludes Singer’s main argument. Singer creates a strong argument for two reasons. On one hand, he does not only give evidences that directly support the main argument, but also points out the weaknesses of the opposite of argument. For example, he uses the assumption of suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad as his first evidence. He later asserts that “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we out, morally, to do it” as his second evidence. After explaining these two statements, Singer starts his objections to the opposite of his argument. For example, he specifically challenges the people who use government as an excuse to avoid the duty of helping famine. On the other hand, Singer demonstrates his logical thinking by constructing the essay in an organized way, which greatly helped the readers to understand his arguments. By giving clear indications, such as “I begin with...” “My next point is…” “My third point is…” Singer leads the readers step by step to follow his argument.
What is singer's Basic argument? - The way people in relatively affluent countries react to a situation like that in Bengal cannot be justified; indeed, the whole way we look at moral issues - our moral conceptual scheme - needs to be altered, and with it, the way of life that has come to be taken for granted in our society.
What is the strength of his argument? - Argues for the moral position - “without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance" - If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it - It makes no moral difference whether the person I can help is a neighbor's child ten yards from me or a Bengali whose name I shall never know, ten thousand miles away. - If we accept any principle of impartiality, universalizability, equality, or whatever, we cannot discriminate against someone merely because he is far away from us (or we are far away from him). - that the fact that there are millions of other people in the same position, in respect to the Bengali refugees, as I am, does not make the situation significantly different from a situation in which I am the only person who can prevent something very bad from occurring. - Should I consider that I am less obliged to pull the drowning child out of the pond if on looking around I see other people, no further away than I am, who have also noticed the child but are doing nothing?
The strength of his argument is that he argues something and then faces it with a counter argument, yet making his point very clear.
Peter Singer argues in the article “Famine, affluence, and morality” that if people have power to prevent mischances from happening, they ought to help it. He supports his argument through applying his precondition and assertions into the situation in Bengali, India. He also provides some ethical, moral, and somewhat philosophical approach with brief examples of rescuing a little boy in shallow pond; it definitely made a considerable impact on readers to be confused and contemplate over what they would have done. In his argument, rather than giving readers the answers right away, he makes readers to struggle about the morality and slowly convince and indoctrinate readers to think the same way as he argues. Moreover, he states the counter argument about self-protection technique that fulfills his previous applications. Through his addressing counter argument, readers can be more likely to take his overall arguments as more suitable, logical and applicable.
Famine, Affluence, and Morality written by Pete Singer argues that people of affluent countries have an obligation to help. Singer says that people who are aware of suffering and can prevent it and have no moral reason not, ought to help. Singer uses the “shallow pond” example. This example states that if you are walking by a pond and you see a child drowning, you ought to save the child if you are able to and have no moral reason not to. He uses this example and ties back to the then present crisis in East Bengal. He strengthens his argument by stating possible counterarguments and responding to them. He claims that even though you may be far away from the problem or the people suffering, you are still obligated to help but only if you are able and no moral reason not to. He also states that it makes no difference if you are the only person who can do anything or just one of millions who can help, you should still help if you meet the two requirements: if you are able and have no moral reason not to. Singer’s argument comes full circle and is very effective in the way that he relates back to his two simple rules. He feels that no matter what counterargument that can be presented, he has an answer. This shows the confidence in his argument and gives readers faith in following him.
After going over Singer's initial argument in class today, I have a much clearer understanding of what his thesis is, if we have the power to prevent suffering with no moral equivalent suffering we ought to help. The argument over all was very strong and convincing, Singer gave his thesis and then described the thesis using two strong positive examples. One, that suffering is bad, and the second that the people in Bengali are suffering and need help. His article made the point that when someone needs help, if you are able and have the knowledge of the problem, then you ought to help. After supporting his thesis, Singer adds a counter example to his argument. By introducing the counter example, of multiple people being in the same situation, he is able to flip the reader's initial position on the argument. This tactic is very strong and allows the reader the need to sit back and review what they have just read in order to reach their own decision about the topic, specifically the Bengali people, yet more broad the action of helping others for no reason but to just help them.
Singer's argument deals directly with one's ability to help those in need, specifically with no moral reason not to. Basically what he is saying is if a person is able to help the create a better life, then that person has an obligation to do so, unless otherwise reflected through their morals. The two points he uses to support his argument are suffering is bad (a universal understanding in most cases), and we should help if we have the ability to stop suffering without it negatively effecting ones self.
17 comments:
Singer makes a very strong argument about the morality and obligation of charity. The basic argument is that affluent countries cannot justify not aiding countries in need and that the moral issue is corrupt. He makes clear assumptions that allow him to make explicit examples to add validity to his point. When he states,” if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it. 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.” He addresses the counter argument of self-preservation. In another point he states the global view, where the problem is too far away. He adds strength to his argument that states the problem isn’t so far anymore because of technology and transportation.
Peter Singer makes a very strong argument in his article. His basic argument is that “the way people in relatively affluent countries react to a situation like that in Bengal cannot be justified”, and that the way people view the morality of the issue “needs to be altered”. He references the world as a “global village”, in which it is just as easy to help someone in Bengal as it is to help someone on your own block, therefore giving people a reason to support each other. He makes many points (some philosophical, some practical) about the topics he presents, and goes into detail with lots of support to back up what he is saying. He further explains each point by analyzing what he states. Again, Singer presents a solid argument through his abundance of support and clarity.
Famine, Affluence, and Morality written by Peter Singer argues that the people and countries that are “relatively affluent” are unjustified in terms of moral issues and the way of life these people have taken for granted. The strength of Peter Singers argument is well stated and mildly strong. While Peter Singer’s points may be arguable, he provides rebuttals to such oppositions with adequate explanation. For example, he addresses the objection of his argument “…simply that it is too drastic of our moral scheme.” He clarifies and argues in rebuttal that “From the point of view of a particular society, it is essential to prevent violations of norms against killing, stealing, and so on. It is quite inessential, however, to help people outside one's own society.” In his rebuttal he relates the two with the moral norms in affluent cultures with those of others and himself suggesting that helping others is also morally correct. Peter Singer creates a simple argument and uses sufficient evidence and rebuttals to different objections that allows for a reader to become even more convinced. Another tool that Peter Singer uses throughout his article is the necessary repetitiveness continuously circling back to his arguments and points, tying them together, refreshing the readers mind about each point after explaining, and giving examples.
Singer made a convincible argument that “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.” He set several premises about helping famine. The idea of “Global village” avoid people from saying they should help the people nearby instead of thousands miles away, because of the technological advancements. He used logical argument to convinced people that they should everyone else in similar circumstances ought to give as much as possible. He also clarifies that the distinction of duty and charity.
-Singer’s argument: “Although Britain is providing money to stop people from starving, it is not enough. The amount being spent to aid the people in Bengal is very small compared to that on the development of supersonic transportation. The world prioritizes technology over people’s lives. The contrast between the amounts of money being spent on the two different fields shows how immoral the world is.”
-Counter Argument to that of Singer’s (reason not to give assistance): The affluent countries concentrate more on helping themselves while they can provide aid to the poor countries, so that they don’t become one of those poor countries that need aid. Using money for the country itself stops the increase in number of people from suffering in general.
Peter Singer argues in his article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” that people who have a good economic income should help others that are poor or are starving. One of the examples he gives is that “if everyone in the same circumstances like mine gave 5 pounds to the Bengal Relief Fund” it would help give them food, shelters and medical care. The issue is that, Bengal is not the only place in the world with hunger problems, so this will just be a solution to a minimum part of the problem. Throughout the article, the author gives several strong examples that support his main argument, which is that countries with a higher economic fluency should donate to countries that have starvation problems. Additionally, the strength of his arguments is that he makes people feel guilty of the current situation of countries. The author successfully transfers and convinces the audience about his idea and arguments. If a reader does not analyze the article carefully, one will easily be convinced by his opinions. However if a reader analyzes the arguments he will find that paradoxes lie within the argument of the author.
What is singer's Basic argument?
Peter Singer basically argues that individuals who are able to donate money to resolve starvation and famine problems in many poor areas of the world must do so. His main points are that death by starvation is bad, and people with financial ability ought to provide their money unless doing so creates another mishap. In addition, he argues that proximity or distance should not be considered when giving out money. Singer argues that helping out your neighbor is more likely than giving money to people on far countries, but both activities are equally moral.
What is the strength of his argument?
Given both the length and depth of his arguments, Peter Singer seems to be convincing to many of his readers strongly. However, he never convinced me. To justify his argument, Singer redefines the term ‘morality’ and frequently uses the phrase ‘ought to’. What do these word and phrase mean to people anyway? The definition and application of morality are so broad that it is impossible to urge other people to follow a certain person’s beliefs. Singer says that it is moral for people to help out when they can, but what does he mean by the phrase when they can? Should I give out my money to poor people in Bengal rather than to buy a Papa’s meal when I desperately want to eat Monday calzone? Some people might say that I am a cold person if I do not give my money to starving people, but I can hardly do anything if I consider all starving people in the world every time I try to use my money. Should I not eat out with my friends on my birthday because there are starving people on the other side of the Earth? Should I quit getting soda from the vending machine because some people somewhere on the Earth are dying from thirst? What can I do if I keep thinking about these people suffering within their own circumstances? Saving lives and helping starving people are great, but I am not Jesus and cannot sacrifice my life for the well-being of others. Furthermore, I should determine what I ought to do. I ought to go to a top U.S. college which will cost me around $40,000. However, because there are starving people in Africa, should I just attend a community college that will cost me much less tuition and donate the money saved to the starving Africans? As Singer himself argued, this is a situation that creates a new mishap by trying to prevent the original mishap. Therefore, I have my right not to spend my money on things that are relatively less important to me. To take away strength from his arguments, Singer also uses an appeal to emotion. By defining morality in his way and telling people what they ought to do in regard to the situation in East Bengal, he implicitly claims that we are killing those Africans if we do not give out money while we can. However, it is not our fault that people are dying in Africa. It is neither our government’s responsibility. What is the government of East Bengal for? Of course, the U.S. government is much wealthier than the one in East Bengal, but American government has its own areas of expenditure such as Social Security and health care. For these stated reasons and many more, I state that Peter Singer’s argument has no strength to convince me to take a penny out of my pocket.
Singer makes a strong argument about the moral reasons of why we should help others. He is able to bring up good points, for example he says “neither our distance from a preventable evil nor the number of other people who, in respect to that evil, are in the same situation as we are, lessens our obligation to mitigate or prevent that evil.” He speaks that it is our moral duty to help the people around us, rather they be ten feet away or on the other side of the world. In the article he says that people are more likely to help someone who is right next to them, than someone that is two-thousand miles away. But he shows the reader that this idea is not just, and that distance should not make a difference to who we help, and don’t help. But this leads back to Singer’s main argument, “if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything else morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it.” Making this argument seems logical, and will greatly influence the way people think, when it comes to helping others. Singer is able to show us why we should help, even though we are on the other side of the world. He also addresses the counter argument, but the way he phrases the words, just makes his argument seem stronger. That is again why, I believe Singer has made a strong argument.
The main idea brought up by Peter Singer in his article is that the reaction of affluent countries in aiding relatively poor countries that suffer from hunger is not justifies and “needs to be altered”. First he start with analyzing the case in England, in which he strongly questioned the extent of financial aid and work the British government had put in solving this problem. Then he raised the case of Bengal as an example and he described the whole world as a “global village”, which suggests that aiding other countries in the world does not have any technological difficulties for affluent countries. Also, Singer led this issue to a level of morality. He started viewing this incidence from a more ethical point of view. He indicated that such action is to avoid “something bad from happening” and it is not costing “anything of comparable moral importance” so “we ought, morally, to do it.”
Peter Singer argument is that of acting out ethical deeds can go a long way in helping out another country that is starving and going through such a prolonged time of pestilence and dearth. He makes a great argument on how much money countries could raise money to support Bengal if they would just be willing to do so. One part stuck out that really emphasized his point in the beginning and eventually throughout the document,"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". His arguments are exceptionally strong, clever and valid not only through his articulate vocabulary and language but how he tackles his counter arguments of topics such as self-preservation or distance. Overall his argument is rational and easy for others to understand because all it takes is to be a person of moral.
“I shall argue that the way people in relatively affluent countries react to a situation like that in Bengal cannot be justified”—concludes Singer’s main argument. Singer creates a strong argument for two reasons. On one hand, he does not only give evidences that directly support the main argument, but also points out the weaknesses of the opposite of argument. For example, he uses the assumption of suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad as his first evidence. He later asserts that “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we out, morally, to do it” as his second evidence. After explaining these two statements, Singer starts his objections to the opposite of his argument. For example, he specifically challenges the people who use government as an excuse to avoid the duty of helping famine. On the other hand, Singer demonstrates his logical thinking by constructing the essay in an organized way, which greatly helped the readers to understand his arguments. By giving clear indications, such as “I begin with...” “My next point is…” “My third point is…” Singer leads the readers step by step to follow his argument.
What is singer's Basic argument?
- The way people in relatively affluent countries react to a situation like that in Bengal cannot be justified; indeed, the whole way we look at moral issues - our moral conceptual scheme - needs to be altered, and with it, the way of life that has come to be taken for granted in our society.
What is the strength of his argument?
- Argues for the moral position
- “without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance"
- If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it
- It makes no moral difference whether the person I can help is a neighbor's child ten yards from me or a Bengali whose name I shall never know, ten thousand miles away.
- If we accept any principle of impartiality, universalizability, equality, or whatever, we cannot discriminate against someone merely because he is far away from us (or we are far away from him).
- that the fact that there are millions of other people in the same position, in respect to the Bengali refugees, as I am, does not make the situation significantly different from a situation in which I am the only person who can prevent something very bad from occurring.
- Should I consider that I am less obliged to pull the drowning child out of the pond if on looking around I see other people, no further away than I am, who have also noticed the child but are doing nothing?
The strength of his argument is that he argues something and then faces it with a counter argument, yet making his point very clear.
Peter Singer argues in the article “Famine, affluence, and morality” that if people have power to prevent mischances from happening, they ought to help it. He supports his argument through applying his precondition and assertions into the situation in Bengali, India. He also provides some ethical, moral, and somewhat philosophical approach with brief examples of rescuing a little boy in shallow pond; it definitely made a considerable impact on readers to be confused and contemplate over what they would have done. In his argument, rather than giving readers the answers right away, he makes readers to struggle about the morality and slowly convince and indoctrinate readers to think the same way as he argues. Moreover, he states the counter argument about self-protection technique that fulfills his previous applications. Through his addressing counter argument, readers can be more likely to take his overall arguments as more suitable, logical and applicable.
Famine, Affluence, and Morality written by Pete Singer argues that people of affluent countries have an obligation to help. Singer says that people who are aware of suffering and can prevent it and have no moral reason not, ought to help. Singer uses the “shallow pond” example. This example states that if you are walking by a pond and you see a child drowning, you ought to save the child if you are able to and have no moral reason not to. He uses this example and ties back to the then present crisis in East Bengal.
He strengthens his argument by stating possible counterarguments and responding to them. He claims that even though you may be far away from the problem or the people suffering, you are still obligated to help but only if you are able and no moral reason not to. He also states that it makes no difference if you are the only person who can do anything or just one of millions who can help, you should still help if you meet the two requirements: if you are able and have no moral reason not to.
Singer’s argument comes full circle and is very effective in the way that he relates back to his two simple rules. He feels that no matter what counterargument that can be presented, he has an answer. This shows the confidence in his argument and gives readers faith in following him.
After going over Singer's initial argument in class today, I have a much clearer understanding of what his thesis is, if we have the power to prevent suffering with no moral equivalent suffering we ought to help. The argument over all was very strong and convincing, Singer gave his thesis and then described the thesis using two strong positive examples. One, that suffering is bad, and the second that the people in Bengali are suffering and need help. His article made the point that when someone needs help, if you are able and have the knowledge of the problem, then you ought to help. After supporting his thesis, Singer adds a counter example to his argument. By introducing the counter example, of multiple people being in the same situation, he is able to flip the reader's initial position on the argument. This tactic is very strong and allows the reader the need to sit back and review what they have just read in order to reach their own decision about the topic, specifically the Bengali people, yet more broad the action of helping others for no reason but to just help them.
Singer's argument deals directly with one's ability to help those in need, specifically with no moral reason not to. Basically what he is saying is if a person is able to help the create a better life, then that person has an obligation to do so, unless otherwise reflected through their morals. The two points he uses to support his argument are suffering is bad (a universal understanding in most cases), and we should help if we have the ability to stop suffering without it negatively effecting ones self.
Post a Comment