Peter Singer has some wild views in my opinion on famine, affluence and morality. I don’t honestly agree with a lot of his views. Some of the points he had made sense and I could agree partially but he seems a bit extreme. Throughout this paper I will do the tasks given to me and explain why I don’t agree with all of his views. I will also explain in detail and give support from outside sources backing up my work.
I believe Singers goal in this essay is to let people know from his point of view what would be considered morally wrong for the rich to do to the poor. Such as people or societies are obligated to donate more and more resources to humanitarian causes than they are. He supports his argument by saying if you are able to help someone no matter the distance, then you are morally obligated to do so. He also says if you do not then the death of the individual or society is your fault for not doing what you were obligated to do.
Counter Arguments:
I do not believe that it is all of the other countries responsibility to help a country out because they are in need. Do I think it is nice to do so? Yes. Although I don’t think they should have to or be looked down upon when they don’t. I believe that countries should be happy with any and all help they get. Even if it’s not as much as could have been given. The country in need is not priority in my eyes, my country would be first. Singer I don’t think he sees it that way. The implication is that the British government values a supersonic transport more than thirty times as highly as it values the lives of the nine million refugees (Singer 1972). Just to add, this is what I mean by a country should make sure its people are in order before other countries. As in a countries debt should be paid before gaining more debt by helping others in need.
I don’t think I should have to feel obligated to help people in need. I have got to where I am today by helping myself. (This is only a counter argument, I do not...