Peter Singer Essay

Peter Singer Equality
In "All Animals Are Equal," Peter Singer argues that any being with sentience should be granted
equal moral consideration on the basis of the concept of equality and the principle of equal
consideration of interests. In this paper, I will reconstruct Singer's argument and explain the
premises on how he came to this conclusion. To begin with, Singer defines sentience as the capacity
to suffer or experience enjoyment or happiness (Singer 53). Singer states that "if a being is not
capable of suffering, or of experiencing enjoyment or happiness, there is nothing to be taken into
account... This is why the limit of sentience... is the only defensible boundary of concern for the
interests of other" (Singer 50).
Firstly, Singer claims that we should understand the concept of equality as a reason for accepting
the conclusion of his argument. What he means by this is that the concept of equality is a moral
ideal and not a simple assertion of fact (Singer 52). In other words, when we say that all human
beings are equal, we do not assert that they are in fact equal in intelligence, moral capacity, physical
strength, or similar matters of fact. Instead, we assert that they...show more content...
That is to say, for any being that has interests, these interests must be taken as equally morally
important with similar interests of another being. However, Singer notes that equal consideration of
interests does not imply identical treatment. Instead, Singer argues that the principle of equality is
equality of equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and rights (Singer
50). Extending to nonhuman animals the same moral consideration we extend to human beings
means that we give the interests of nonhuman animals the same weight as comparable interests of
human beings (Singer
Get more content on HelpWriting.net

Analysis Of The Philosopher By Peter Singer
The philosopher, Peter Singer, brought up three key philosophical topics: morals, ethics and
meaning. Singer's interview started with the question of morals. Why don't people see a problem
with shopping at high–end stores? Most people do not see the harm in spending money on
themselves because they justify that they aren't hurting anyone else. But are they? It is common
sense that by choosing to spend money on one thing, you are choosing not to spend money on
another. Singer states " What do I omit to do?" A question that most overlook in their decision
making process. Ethics are basic choices in our lives. Choices of how we spend our money, the
food that we eat and how we treat others are all applied ethics that we challenge everyday.

Peter Singer: Ethics, Moral And Ethical Values
With an overwhelming stream of information floating around us every day, it became very hard to
filter and form the right understanding of what is really happening, but what is even harder is to
keep proper moral and ethical values. Many famous authors have put their word in such eternal
discussion about what is right and what is wrong and Peter Singer is one of them. Singer is a moral
theorist, who mainly focuses on spreading ethics in his works. Singer bases key propositions on his
own perspective of values; hence, to understand Singer's points and following arguments we must
acknowledge his definitions of ethics and morality. Hahn defines those values as "ethics, also
called moral philosophy, is the discipline concerned with what is morally good and bad, right and
wrong. The term is also applied to any system or theory of moral values or principles." (Abboud,
A.J., 2008) Ethics is about our way of living and making decisions....show more content...
Throughout his works, Peter Singer tried to tell us that It doesn't matter what has happened to
people, whether they are seeking asylum or request medical or food assistance we have our duty
to assist them. To prevent something similar from happening in future, or to cure current crisis
we need to rethink our internal values and decide, what is really important, a pair of new stylish
shoes, or a saved life. Because of wrong set priorities, people tend to be selfish when it comes to
such things which lead to wrong decisions and later on snowballs to more global problems. "If the
circle of ethics really does expand, and a higher ethical consciousness spreads, it will fundamentally
change the society in which we live. (Peter Singer,

The Life You Can Save By Peter Singer
Living in a third world country such as Africa gives us a direct knowledge on how much poverty
has spent the majority of the world. In the book "The Life You Can Save" by Peter Singer wrote
about how affluent people do not contribute to the African poor like children when they have the
luxury lifestyle. His book led to arguments about the only way to solving world poverty is simply the
money that is being spent on Indispensable, such as luxuries, should be donated to charity.
Affluent and needy people live together in the same or different country, but the poor people die
every single day by the cause of lack of food, shelter and medical care (Singer 15).So the author
will try to open our eyes how the lower class die every single days. Thus, some people say that the
author shares us a good idea about donation because Singer claims this is a demanding moral
principle. It wouldn't allow you from buying most luxury goods, extra clothes, video games.
Others people say that it was a bad idea because of misinterpretation of moral obligation, privacy
concern and generous giving does not often support people. I agree with latter. So the singer
introduces for us a bad idea.
One reason why I do not support "the life you can save" book introduce bad ideas is because the
author keep asking the moral question to support poor people. If Peter Singer has a moral, he will
donate his entire money but Singer himself doesn't go that far, giving away only 20% of his net
income. Meanwhile,

Principles Of Peter Singer And Utilitarianism
Peter Singer and Utilitarianism Utilitarianism was founded by a man named Jeremy Bentham in the
mid–1700s and was thoroughly studied by John Stuart Mill. It is the idea of "The Greatest
Happiness Principle." Based on its principle, Utilitarianism states that to be good is to create the
greatest possible happiness for the greatest number. This philosophy focuses more on maximizing the
overall happiness for the population. When making a decision, utilitarianism evaluates the actions
taken based on their consequences, and by weighing the consequence; it will produce more
practical results. Since Utilitarianism judges the decision by weighing the outcomes, it is also
known as consequentialism. Peter Singer, an Australian utilitarian famous for his philosophy on
famine and animal rights, discussed how giving charity to alleviate famine starts with accepting
utilitarianism as a guide. In the essay "Famine, Affluence, and Morality," Singer explains to the
reader that many people are suffering and leading miserable lives, especially in countries that
often have natural disasters and where the average income is less than a dollar a day. A summary
of what he is trying to say in the essay is "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." (Paragraph 6) Singer always wants to look at alternatives. He believes that
someone should do whatever works whether it is

Peter Singer Animal Rights Summary
Traditionally the treatment of non–human animals is considered a trivial matter because these
animals lacked souls and are created to serve mankind. But the utilitarian's took a different viewpoint
in how we treat animals. Peter Singer is one of them and he guided the liberation of animals, which
is akin to women liberation movement in the 18th century.
It is obvious that humans and non–human animals are different in terms of rational thought, abilities,
and capabilities (Wolfe 569). Therefore, it becomes meaningless to talk of rights from a standard set
viewpoint. It is like measuring items although the measuring units are different; grams for weight
and liters for liquids.
The basic principle of equality is not in giving equal and similar treatment and rights to the groups
but rather giving considerations according to their needs, interests, and preferences. For instance, an
American child needs the formal education in a school setup, but it is pointless to give a horse
formal education as they have no interest or need for it. Therefore, equality is giving consideration
to needs of each species...show more content...
But there are those who defy this concept since some blacks Africans have superior abilities than
white supremacists and also there are women with superior abilities than their male counterparts.
Therefore, it is unjustified to judge a person simply by their gender and sex. If racists and sexists
are shunned by society, it then follows that speciesists should equally be condemned. Pushing for the
interests of people from your race or gender or species, such that they interfere with others, according
to Kant (137), is morally wrong and against the principle of fair treatment and consideration of other
people's needs and

As a whole, the average American family will spend around one third of their income on goods
and services that are considered to be unnecessary (not direct quote, citing source of statistic,
Singer, 230). This spending phenomenon is brought to light by the writing of Peter Singer, a moral
philosopher at Princeton University, who presents a solution to poverty around the world by
arguing the American's habit of spending is immoral due to the consequence of the suffering of
those in poverty that could be prevented if the money was donated to their cause as opposed to
being spent on items that are not necessities. As an objection, I will claim Singer's argument is
invalid due to the assumptions and implications Singer uses in relation to Mackie's Error Theory,
which is an argument based upon there being no universal and objective moral values or facts, and
through this theory present Singer's contradiction of himself that creates structural issues for his
argument. Singer presents his argument through the sharing of two unique stories; the Brazilian
film "Central Station", and the story of Bob and his Bugatti, originally presented by New York
University philosopher Peter Unger. In the case of "Central Station", Singer explains the story of
Dora, a Brazilian woman who makes just enough to make ends meet, and therefore does not have
any extra money to spend on non–essential things. One day Dora is told she can make $1000 by
leading a 9–year–old orphan to an address she was

The Way We Spend In Peter Singer's Ethics'
The issue that is being discussed is the way we spend the money is a form of Ethic, and ethic is
more than what we decide is what we know that is right or wrong. The importance of
acknowledge what is right or wrong to decide everything in this life. In the video "Peter Singer's
Ethics" the author made a significant questions such as what we should spend our money on? Or
how we spend that money?" because ethic is about "the basic choices that we are making our
lives and one of those choices of how do we spend our money" (Singer, 2010) "Also, I agree that we
all have a limited amount of money to spend, and we all have moral obligations in order to use our
money to help

Peter Singer Essay
Peter Singer, an Australian philosopher and professor at Princeton University asks his students
the simple question of whether they would save a drowning child from a pond, while wearing
they're bran new pair of expensive shoes. The response was aggressive and passive "How could
anyone consider a pair of shoes, or missing an hour or two at work, a good reason for not saving a
child's life?" В№ Singer continued to argue that " according to UNICEF, nearly 10 million children
under five years old die each year from causes related to poverty." ВІ Is not saving a child drowning
in a pond right in front of you the same thing as a child half way across the world dying in poverty?
Peter Singer's response would be a big yes, he explains his way of...show more content...
We each have a right to buy anything we would like with our own money. Whether that right is a
good decision how ever is something we must stop and question. " You may have a right to spend
your weekend surfing, but it can still be true that you ought to visit your sick mother." Someone
with all the money in the world could buy a new car every day, throw lavish parties, go on
vacation once a month on a new jet plane and even throw tons of money into a lake, they have the
right to do so with they're money! How ever coud this incredibly rich person choose to do other
things with their money? " To choose to do these things rather than use the money to save human
lives is wrong." вЃµ Singer insist that we should use our money wisely. In Singer's last argument
he states a blunt and simple responce to Lucy's opinion on giving. " My aim is to convince you,
the individual reader that you can and should be doing a lot more to help the poor." By having
the right to controle your own money and because we were fortunate enough to live in such great
economical conditions, we should work harder to help others that will never have the same
chances. Lucy from Glennview High and Peter Singer make strong points on each side of the
fence. I am all for Lucy's opinion in the sense that if a person works hard in life to earn their
money, they have the right to spend it on themselves. I for one go to school full

Title
Hook. Both John Stuart Mill and Peter Singer approach moral philosophy from a utilitarian
perspective. In this paper, I will argue that Singer's and Mill's utilitarian philosophies share numerous
similarities but also differ. Singer and Mill agree on the importance of selflessness, the idea that we
can end human suffering, and the significance of consequences. However, their views conflict
concerning the relevance of motivation. I contend that Singer improves upon Mill's utilitarianism
since Singer accurately recognizes the discrepancy between a life of absolute affluence and absolute
poverty and also wrestles with the intricate concept of motive.
Singer and Mill's views on unselfishness and our ability to end human suffering align....show more
content...
Mill argues that all sources "of human suffering are in a great degree, many of them almost entirely,
conquerable by human care and effort" (Mill 15). Through this statement, Mill and Singer's
perspectives realign. Singer states that "if we stopped feeding animals on grains and soybeans, the
amount of food saved would–– if distributed to those who need it–– be more than enough to end
hunger throughout the world" (Singer 220). Thus, the problem rests in the selfishness of affluent
nations, who do not distribute their grain to poor nations. Singer furthermore argues that we could
provide contraceptives to poor nations to slow their birth rates (Singer 241). By evenly distributing
food and slowly the birth rate, human suffering caused by absolute poverty could cease to exist. Mill
and Singer agree that consequences are more important than motive yet disagree on motive's
relevance. Mill states that right actions do "not necessarily indicate a virtuous character" and that
blamable actions "often proceed from qualities entitled to praise" (Mill 20). Similarly, Singer states
that "there is no intrinsic difference between killing and allowing to die" (Singer 224). He uses the
analogy of the travelling salesman to illustrate this argument. In this analogy, a travelling salesman
sells tinned food that he knows contains a contaminant that will double the risk of stomach cancer.
He sells the food nonetheless, with no identifiable victims and no certainty (Singer

Peter Singer Research Paper
Peter Singer makes the suggestion that we are obligated to give as much as possible to charity.
Obligatory acts are acts that are required and would be wrong to not do. I would have to disagree
with Singer's opinion here because there are times when people are going to be unable to give to
charity and there are going to be people that choose not to give to charity. For example, say there is
a woman who is living in poverty and is in need of financial assistance. It would be hard for the
woman to help someone that is in the same situation that she is in. Thus, it is not her duty to give
because she honestly does not have it and I would also say that her failing to not give is not
immoral. Now, if there is a women who is living in an upper class

Peter Singer's Argument Summary
In this essay I will provide a summary of Peter Singer's argument about obligations the wealthiest
percent of people have to those in the poorest percent. In the first section I will summarize his
arguments. In the second section I will present some of other philosophers and my own reasoning
for not agreeing with his all of his arguments. Peter Singer says that In order to live an ethically
balanced life the citizens in developed should give the money that they use for unnecessary luxuries
to those in developing countries who are starving, ill or dying. Singer takes a utilitarian approach
when talking about poverty as his main argument is that we should be maximising pleasure and
minimizing suffering.
Premises
Singer's first point is that "Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care...show
more content...
From this basis he then goes on to argue that "If it is in your power to prevent something bad
from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so". He
shows this clearly with an analogy about a dying child in the following quote. "If I am walking
past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought to wade in and pull this child out. This
will mean getting my clothes muddy, but this is insignificant, while the death of a child would
presumably be a very bad thing." This quote puts in very simple terms what is a very complex
argument when applied something as broad as poverty. His position on this matter is also illustrated
through the following quote, "If you are living comfortably while others are hungry or dying from
easily preventable diseases, and you are doing nothing about it, there is something wrong with your
behaviour." Clearly in this quote Singer takes a strong view about people in developed countries
helping those in developing countries. Singer also shows these views by expressing his thoughts on
easily preventable

Any Topic (writer 's Choice)
Practical Ethics
Introduction
Practical Ethics is a book by Peter Singer, the modern bioethical philosopher. It analyzes how and
the reasons as to why beings' interests should be weighted. According to Singer, a being's interest
should be weighted on the basis of the properties of the being and never on the basis of its
affiliation to some abstract group (Peter n.p). The book studies a wide array of ethical issues
including abortion, sex, race, ability, infanticide, political violence, the moral status of animals,
obligation to assist others, overseas aid, species, embryo experimentation, and euthanasia (Review of
Practical Ethics n.p). In assessing the lives which are pleasurable and those which are not, Singer
accounts for the lives of the other creatures within the animal kingdom. Singer posits that "We
should recognize that different beings argue that each life is equal and valueble". Singer is not
particularly convinced that just because 'an individual 's life may include the endeavour of
philosophy while that of a mouse 's cannot does not imply that "one is more or less valuable than the
other" (Singer 152).
Peter Singer's Morality on Abortion
Singer 's ideas on abortion are a reasonable and defensible set of positions that he shows to be both
ethical and practical. Notably, the issue of abortion is currently one of the most heated and bitterly
disputed of all the ethical issues. The debate has ongoing for the longest time neither of the

Peter Singer
This documentary had several interesting and well thought out points. Each of the philosophers had
very different approaches when it came to life. One of the first quotes of the documentary was, "The
unexamined life is not worth living." This quote was originally said by Socrates – a Greek
philosopher. The words were supposedly spoken by Socrates at his trial after he chose death rather
than exile. They represent the noble choice which is the choice of death in the face of an alternative.
One of the philosophers that projected themselves to me most was Peter Singer. Singer is a
philosopher mostly known for ethics. Ethics is about the basic choices that we make in our lives
and one of those choices is how we spend our money. He challenges people

Peter Singer Animal Rights Essay
Peter Singer is a contemporary spiritual leader of the animal rights movement, but his
methodological starting point for the protection of animals spirit of the status is not to pretect
rights, but a utilitarian interests of all parties into account. In 1975, his book "Animal Liberation," a
book that giving animals human reason and moral concern, neither intelligence (infant or mentally
disabled patients with no intelligence at all), nor is it moral (or mentally ill offenders amoral at all),
or other general people possess qualities, and is able to experience pain. Peter Singer's view is that
the main interest for the same animal sentience, should be given equal careness. The former equal
concerns equal treatment of non–identical or equal...show more content...
He looked the nonhuman animals as a "life–support", endowed with the same rights as humans.
Although this right is not necessarily to be completely consistent with the human in degree. This
means that these animals are born equal importance with the people, and not just be seen as a
means to an end. He's such a point of view, also known as "direct responsibility". For Regan, all
raising food animals, animal testing, and commercial hunting behavior should be prohibited. Regan's
theory of "life–support" does not include all animals, but at least include all the "one over the age of
mammals."Singh, who is committed to improving the situation of the animals, in certain
circumstances, agree to an appropriate animals for human use, and Regan advocated equal treatment
of animals and people, and in strict accordance with the philosophy of Kant, the animal must not be
considered merely as a tool and sacrifice. Of course, I do not Kant animals into their doctrine of the
moral law, he said, should be compassionate humans, mainly to people not to fall in cruel, but not for
animal welfare considerations. Although there are differences in theory, Singh and Regan are
consistent in practice, such as they think society should advocate vegetarianism, and the abolition of
unnecessary animal experiments. (Tom

Peter Singer Argument
According to the United Nations, a child dies of hunger every ten seconds. Likewise, millions of
people worldwide live in poverty and do not know when they will eat again. While the typical
American throws away leftover food, children are dying across the world from starvation. To put this
into perspective: By the time you have started reading, a child has died of hunger. Bioethicist and
utilitarian philosopher, Peter Singer, in his argumentative essay, "The Singer Solution to World
Poverty," asserts that it is the individual's responsibility to save children in poverty. Singer utilizes
many rhetorical strategies–– including appealing to pathos, repetition, and comparison of statistics––
to defend his argument: "Whatever money you're spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be
given away." He adopts an analytical and indignant tone in order to convince Americans to donate
money to save the lives of millions of children....show more content...
Peter Singer provides the specific number, $200, to demonstrate how reasonable it is to save a child
in poverty. Additionally, he repeats, "to save a child's life," which demonstrates exactly what a $200
donation could do for a helpless child. As an example, Singer references a credible philosopher,
Peter Unger, and acknowledges that, "by his calculation, $200 in donations would help a sickly
2–year–old transform into a healthy 6–year–old." Next, he establishes that, "if you were to give up
dining out just for one month, you would easily save that amount." Singer emphasises this to show
the reader how simple it is to save $200, and, more importantly, save a child's life. By repeating this
number multiple times, following with, "to save a child's life," throughout his essay, Singer implies
a reasonable yet urgent tone in order to convince the reader that if they donate, they will save a

Peter Singer's Essay 'Equality For Animals'
We are all Animals
In Peter Singer's essay, "Equality for Animals", he argues that the principle of equal consideration of
interests can extend beyond just the interests of human beings. He starts out saying just because
there is oppression within our own species, does not mean that our attitude against animals should
be taken less seriously. Going into several topics Singer tries to convey that we may have the wrong
idea about animals.
One point in which I strongly agree with Singer is that just because an animal does not have a
self–consciousness or have the capacity to be as intelligent as a human being does not mean that their
interests should be neglected. I have a problem with this primarily because an animal still has the
capacity to

Peter Singer, a utilitarian philosopher who specializes in applied ethics, is known either as infamous
or famous depending on one's philosophy. Singer has spoken on a multitude of sensitive topics
throughout his career drawing praise and controversy. Notably you can find Singer's position on
solving world poverty in his essay "The Solution to World Poverty". In his essay, he attempts to
persuade readers to follow his thought that it is immoral not to give all your excess wealth to
penurious children. To a degree, he accomplishes his objective within the first half of his essay, using
two hypothetical examples that appeal to emotion. However, Singer's case falls short of completely
selling his utilitarian philosophy, due to his disconnect with the reality of human nature.
Singer begins with an example from the Brazilian film, Central Station, which portrays Dora, a
retired educator, with a chance to easily profit a thousand dollars (Singer 1). All she must do is
deliver a vagrant boy to a given address, where wealthy foreigners will adopt the boy (1). Dora
happily delivers the boy, receiving her reward, and spends it on a high–end television set (1). The
caveat is that she finds out the boy she delivered is too old for adoption, meaning he will be killed
and harvested for organs (1). Horrified Dora determines she must save the boy by taking him back,
thus redeeming herself (1).
Singer's purpose for using Dora's hypothetical situation was to help him construct a moral

Essay On Peter Singer
Peter Singer's idea of wealthy people donating all their money to overseas organizations is a form
extremism and would cause more harm to the global financial system than rid off any existing
poverty. Singer's plan comes from the right place but has many radical ways. Some of the wealthy
will be reluctant to relinquish their privileged position they have become to accustomed to and the
definition of luxury and necessity is different to many. Such a radical way of fixing a problem
would not send a good message to many. Take People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA),
an animal rights campaign, for example. In their latest ad–campaign, "Boyfriend Went Vegan and
Knocked the Bottom out of Me," PETA managed to romanticized...show more content...
The definitions of luxury and necessity is different for any demographic. Being able to have food
on the table and clothes on your back is luxury to some. Giving away all our money to help those
in need is going to put many in the same boat that those in need once were. For example, Bob
doesn't have any clean clothes, so Jim thought it was a smart idea for him to give away all of his
clothes to Bob so he can have many clean clothes to wear. Now Jim is in the same trouble Bob
once found himself in, and now Bob has the luxury of having many clean clothes. Luxury is out
of balance with necessity , and vice versa, but the meaning can be different to many. Yes,
necessity comes first, but allow others to face these necessities first, if there is enough to go
around, then there will be enough room for luxury to fit into the equation. Also, many wealthy
people would be too afraid to let go of any fraction of their money to a cause they don't know if it
means well or not. Take the Kid Wish Network, an organization claimed to help kids need, for
example. This charity organization raises over 100 million every year, but every year less than
three cents on the dollar go to helping kids. Some wealthy rather hold a firm grip on their one
million sport car than help those who are in dire

Essay On Materialism By Peter Singer
Peter Singer states that "our ordinary patterns of spending money on ourselves are immoral."; but
my response to this is that, as human beings we don't know any better. Consumerism is the trap that
holds us dear and truthfully never lets go. If we see something we enjoy, if it adds a level of
comfortability, or gives us the slightly rush of adrenaline; we must acquire it. We thrive off
materialism items, although most aren't necessary needed to live a wholesome life. I believe all you
ultimately need is food, water, shelter, and clothing. I'm not including education, healthcare, or
anything that follows along these lines. I'm not saying that spending money on materialism items
such as makeup is a terrible thing, but it shouldn't be the first

Peter Singer Essay

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Más de College Paper Writing Service Reviews

Más de College Paper Writing Service Reviews (20)

Último

Último (20)

Peter Singer Essay