Ethics and moral reasoning
Explain Singer`s goal in this article, and then present Singer`s argument that supports his position.
I think Singer`s goal here is to inform people of the famine of a Bengal, starving country, and to show us that making certain decisions, proper decisions or contributions from the more wealthy will not only benefit ourselves but the others around us. The people whom make the decisions are of course our governments and they saw that building a new Opera House in Australia or the Anglo-French Concorde project was of more importance at the time rather than helping those people live. He states in ...view middle of the document...
Singer feels that the poverty stricken people must not need to be in the position to donate or slave their money away if there are several wealthy individuals who have been more than capable of helping the needy. Several wealthy individuals waste money on the things they want instead of helping those in need. If I see someone who has nothing I will help them out regardless if there is someone of more wealth than I that can help more. It’s the type of person I am, I may not have much but I will give you the shirt off my back if I knew it would help.
Define Singer`s concept of marginal utility, and explain how this concept relates to his argument.
Singer`s basic argument is: The application of the principal, we ought to prevent people from dying of starvation by sacrificing our luxuries. As the quantity of goods and services enhances, the marginal utility diminishes. In economics, the marginal utility of a good and service is the utility gained or the loss from the increment or for the decrement in the consumption of such goods and services. (Dictionary) In other words, the more of something we have the lesser advantages you get from having more of it. Its concept has been that; our extra could be more of an advantage for the starving children than to us. The ideas of duty in the proposed world of Singer are; the suffering along with death caused through lesser food, shelter and medical care have been bad, when this has been in our power for avoiding anything bad from happening, without sacrificing anything of the comparable moral importance.
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.
Having giving a lot or little to those in need is always appreciated, but for Singer to say that we all have to do it like it is a law is wrong. For the most part we all live in poverty. So yes I agree we should all help one another, but to a certain extent. I live in a world where there is famine everywhere, so why would I send my money to some other country when my own country needs it just as bad. I would not, but I will donate my time to those on the streets and give them a good meal. I would think with a big family like mine that’s all I would be able to afford to donate. We pay taxes to support this sort of help to Salvation Army`s, safe houses, and The Red Cross. I think that’s all we need to donate. Some of our taxes goes to those who do not need it and spend it on private planes or family vacations, so we bust our butts to benefit the wealthier than us. I will support those who fight for us, I am glad that they put their lives on the line but if it wasn’t for a certain...