However, much has happened since it went up, including the Blogger outage. Scroll down for a report on that.
A Multicultural Approach, Prentice Hall,5th ed. Singer argues that people have an obligation to prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care, regardless of where such suffering and death occurs in the world.
Singer first presents an argument that would require considerable sacrifice. This initial argument runs as follows: If we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, we ought to do it; suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care is bad; there is some suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care we can prevent without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance; therefore, we ought to prevent some suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care.
The obligation to relieve suffering and death from these causes need not reduce one to the hardship level, but the obligation arises when abundance is present—as Thomas Aquinas argues. Even the fulfillment of this more moderate requirement would result in a great change in the way of life of citizens of wealthy nations.
Singer subscribes to a strict utilitarianism that accepts some constraints on property rights for the sake of preventing great evils. Lack of food, shelter, and medical care are great evils that can be prevented. Singer finds that many people do not think along the lines he proposes on matters of poverty relief.
Singer rejects this limited community-oriented view in favor of universal liberal standards. Although his own preference is for the utilitarian standard of impartiality or equal treatment, Singer notes that a Kantian standard of universalizability would also support the claim that all persons in serious need are entitled to relief regardless of their geographical proximity.REAL LIFE IN LONDON Project Gutenberg's Real Life In London, Volumes I.
and II., by Pierce Egan This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. Search Results for 'peter singer famine affluence and morality' Peter Singer "Famine, Affluence, And Morality" Within the essay, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, philosopher Peter Singer addresses the issue of poverty and the problems surrounding the lack of help from the.
In "Famine, Affluence, and Morality," Peter Singer is trying to argue that "the way people in relatively affluent countries react to a situationÐ' cannot be justified; indeed,Ð' 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"(Singer ).
Famine, affluence, and morality / Peter Singer. Format Book Published New York, NY: Oxford University Press,  Summary First published in , Singer's essay argued that choosing not to send life-saving money to starving people on the other side of the earth is the moral equivalent of neglecting to save drowning children because we.
ABSTRACT. For over years grave fears have been expressed concerning the earth’s capacity to cope with an exponential population growth.
It is obvious that the calamitous famines and widespread starvation repeatedly forecast over the last years, have never eventuated.
ABSTRACT. For over years grave fears have been expressed concerning the earth’s capacity to cope with an exponential population growth. It is obvious that the calamitous famines and widespread starvation repeatedly forecast over the last years, have never eventuated. Peter Singer's 'Famine, Affluence, and Morality' is the single most important text in applied ethics. Singer gives us the simplest and most powerful argument in modern philosophy that we must change the way we live fundamentally. Peter Singer's article, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, presents a strong view on the moral values which people all around the world today are giving to the global famine taking place these days.
Outline of PETER SINGER: “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” Singer’s main argument: 1. Lack of food & shelter & medicine is bad. 2. 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.