This part of Singer's essay is about the questions NYU philosophy professor Peter Unger devised to investigate our understanding about whether it's ethically wrong to live well when people around the world are suffering from preventable diseases. Singer provides some examples, such as that of a man who has an expensive car who could destroy it to stop a train that will run over a child but doesn't do so. While most people would deem...
This part of Singer's essay is about the questions NYU philosophy professor Peter Unger devised to investigate our understanding about whether it's ethically wrong to live well when people around the world are suffering from preventable diseases. Singer provides some examples, such as that of a man who has an expensive car who could destroy it to stop a train that will run over a child but doesn't do so. While most people would deem this person's actions wrong, they still don't give the $200 or so that it would take, according to Unger, to allow a sickly two-year-old to develop into a healthy six-year-old. However, it is difficult to determine if there is a moral difference between the man who does not save the child on the tracks and the wealthy westerner who does not give $200 to save suffering children. Singer concludes that since governments, such as that of the U.S., give less than what the United Nations recommends in international humanitarian aid and many westerners do not give any aid, we have a moral imperative to give surplus wealth to help suffering people around the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment