Some interpret Singer’s argument as too demanding-implying that we must live simplistically, giving away any and all money we would otherwise spend on luxuries. It has thus given rise to many objections, several of which are discussed below. Singer’s argument has radical implications for how many live, since most things routinely purchased in affluent countries are less important than a human life. So, Singer concludes that it is wrong for many of us not to donate-it’s like letting the toddler drown in the pond to prevent our clothes from getting ruined. Further, our doing so wouldn’t require that we sacrifice anything of comparable moral importance: we would just need to spend less money on things less important than human life: e.g., vanilla lattes, Netflix, and other luxuries. This principle explains why we should save the drowning child: her life is far more important than your outfit.īut millions of people are suffering or dying from absolute poverty and many of us could easily do something to prevent this by donating to effective aid agencies. Singer’s argument depends on a fairly straightforward moral principle: if we can prevent something very bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we are morally obligated to do so.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |