Flaws of peter singers arguments

Our drives to maximize our own pleasure and minimize our own suffering are in themselves neither good nor bad, rational nor irrational. Although these relationships may not be reciprocal we still have a duty to help them insofar as possible.

But suppose that later that day you encounter a second drowning child.

How Persuasive Is Peter Singer’s Argument For Famine Relief? – Political Science Essay

If an animal contributes its labour to the economy, that is good enough reason to see it included in our society morally.

Farming practices cause animals to suffer only in order to satisfy the palates of human beings. Interests should receive equal consideration.

Therefore, they are following the modest principle by providing help without sacrificing themselves. There remains a system of other socially-agreed moral rules, and we can with good conscience punish murderers, fraudsters, and other miscreants who break them. Code currently encompasses volumes.

The same argument holds for other carnivores — tigers, crocodiles, owls, weasels, and the others of that bloodstained lot.

This involves either seeing first-hand the benefits they are providing or receiving compensation in return for their good deeds. He encourages a universal scope in which distance is morally irrelevant.

There are no objectively-existing moral facts. There needs to be a trickle-down effect in order for the solutions to sustain for a long period of time; this entails the wealthy to correct the flaws of the political and economic institutions that are causing the individuals to suffer.

But suppose instead that we all fell several times a day, so that in your normal morning constitutional you would see people going down like ten pins. They may not be conscious of these functions, but they nonetheless have them and are to be considered successful in so far as they perform them and unsuccessful in so far as they do not.

I wanted that spider to get away, and felt relieved when it did. What is needed is an additional premise to the effect that he is the only person who could do so. More interestingly, one need not have an opinion for objective facts to exist. The upshot is that you can grant Singer his basic principle about an obligation to alleviate suffering, yet still reject his limitless conclusions.

You have to grab your chequebook and wade on in. Research animals—mice, non-human primates, the various animals used by scientists to conduct research.

Bentham’s Fallacies, Then and Now

Singer recognizes that we do have special relations to certain individuals, such as family and friends. If a being has interests, then it is possible for good or bad things to happen to it.

You can rescue the child at no danger to yourself, but at the cost of ruining your new suit PE, p. If we were to pass this situation then we would be morally obliged to rescue the child from drowning if the only cost to us were to ruin our clothes for example.

For example, in describing animals in factory farms, Singer often speaks of them being stressed or bored, as if these categories translate unproblematically from humans to chickens Animal Liberation, p.

There is another difference between your obligations to the drowning child and your obligations to suffering humanity. Rather, Singer argues that once we decide to be ethical — that is, to seek principles to justify our actions — then reason forces us to conclude that those principles must be universalizable: After all, these things increase the chance that the species will continue to exist in the future.

You can question how to apply these principles in particular situations, but for Singer there are no principles more fundamental. Animals have a major interest in avoiding suffering.

For if we could evolve from these critters, other highly intelligent species could evolve from them as well, given sufficient time. In real societies, and especially in large-scale modern societies, there are a profusion of competing ethical principles.

This is a desire and a preference that Jill wishes satisfied. Everyone knows what you should do. This conclusion is supported by the assertion, common in economics, that wealth has a diminishing marginal utility: London Edited Books Arneson, R.

If ethical rules arise out of the rough and tumble of harmonizing our own interests, including our social impulses, with the interests of others, and with the contingencies thrown up by an infinitely-various natural world, then the rules we come up with are likely to be partial rules for the here and now, not universal rules which will work in all situations, especially those far from our experience; and there are likely to be a large number of rules, each applicable in a small if ill-defined context.

Oct ;pp Caterson, I. Premise 3 does not follow merely from the fact that Bob could have helped the child by sacrificing something less valuable.

Yet, the wealthy should be more focused on what will be the greatest expected benefit for everyone instead of just what will be helpful for few people right now.There are basically two arguments that could be made against Singer's conclusions: the philosophical and the pragmatic.

The philosophical arguments would largely have to do with rejecting Singer&#;s views on morality. How Persuasive Is Peter Singer’s Argument For Famine Relief?

– Political Science Essay A quick glance at any news, activist, or NGO website will reveal the huge level of global inequalities and problems of poverty that the billion people below the.

There are basically two arguments that could be made against Singer's conclusions: the philosophical and the pragmatic. The philosophical arguments would. Singer's Argument In various written work, notably the article “Famine, Affluence and Morality” [FAM], Peter Singer argues that people living in affluent societies have a duty to help those in famine.

Peter Singer’s ideas aren’t just a threat to society; they endanger the very existence of ethics and ethical behavior. At least this is how Susan Lufkin Kranz sees it.

Singer’s thinking “is clearly an affront to our common humanity” (xiv). Reconstruct the Cultural Differences Argument. c.) Explain why the Cultural Differences Argument is not sound.

Peter Singer Says You Are a Bad Person

d.) Explain three consequences of taking Cultural Relativism seriously. Who is Peter Singer? Explain Singer’s arguments regarding animal experimentation Describe the two examples Rachels says reveal the flaws of "Hedonism." d.

Flaws of peter singers arguments
Rated 5/5 based on 30 review