Peter Singer

0 Comment

That first principle is that death and suffering as result of the shortage of shelter, food, and medical attention are bad. The other principle is that if it is in our power and ability to put to an end these bad things and suffering of the people from occurring, without sacrificing anything of equivalent moral significance, then we ought to honorably do it, as stated by. All these arguments put forward by Singer were to encourage most of the affluent countries to give more of their resources to the unfortunate that they are doing. This would help a great deal in dealing with some of the calamities such as famine and disaster.One of the counter-arguments presented by is the example of the drowning child, as it is only one person who can help out in that instance. In the case of disaster relief, there is a multitude of people who can help out. Replies to this by claiming that it does not matter morally to the question, how many people could help out, what matters is the ability of individuals to take up the moral obligation responsibility. Failure of anyone to act in a disastrous situation would be the failure of all. Thinking that others could help out, does not in any way, lessen the responsibility. If one person takes on the responsibility, the obligation of the others people lapse.One of the counter arguments is the example given about the child. The child is in need of help and what ponders is whether the child is the responsibility of the people around or other people around the globe? This is an indication of how the poor people around the globe are spatially distant and far away. Leaving the child without any help could lead to it drowning. however, in many scenarios donating to the relief agencies could help in the preventions of deaths occurring in the future.