The Pholosophy of Singer

Singer’s argument is simple enough. He believes that any act that can be done without requiring a forfeiture of higher ‘moral importance’ ought to be done. The ambiguity of that claim, along with the sliding scale that the human moral compass is constructed upon should give us pause. Whenever anyone says we ought to do something, we need to look closer at the choices and examine what we, by default, ought not to do. The choices in Bengal seemed quite clear to Singer. He says that India had only two choices, but history proved him wrong. His claims that this does not affect his overall thesis only serves to further a belief that the creation of moral ultimatums is easiest when one sees the fewest number of alternatives. By ignoring the other options open for the people of India and Bengal to help themselves, it is much easier for us

It may seem counterintuitive, and somewhat pointless, to argue the theory behind the moral assumptions in Singer’s work, but then again, arguing the morals themselves is pointless if we don’t know where they are coming from, and how we are to determine ‘moral importance’. Singer never really tells us how we can analyze a given situation and determine our moral obligation. I think he might be happy if we simply consulted him anytime that we found ourselves faced with a quandary. However, there must be something said for conscience, and the set of norms and values, which our society holds as law and custom. Singer tells us we must do more than is expected of us, and we say, why…in reality he is left with little possible retort. He could tell us it is our duty as humans, but then we should feel a desire to help without being told. He could tell us it is our duty as citizens, but then why does the law tell us nothing in regard to this subject? Singer is fighting an uphill battle with little to nothing to draw upon save a possibly outmoded moral system and a lot of good intentions. In the end, his claims are too ambiguous and his conclusions remain ungrounded.

Does society create ethics, or do ethics create society? It seems to be a little of both. I would love to say that we create our own rules, and that Singer is simply fighting a losing battle, but there is something to be said for the way that the ethics of our forefathers shape the nature of our society. We certainly, as a group, give greater importance to the saving of a child’s life than a victory in a sporting event, and we’ve seen the camaraderie and togetherness spawned by the common shock and horror of recent events. We can feel abject horror and grief as a people, showing that there must be some ethical underpinnings to our societal structure, but more often then not our views on moral issues a

Some topics in this essay:
Nietzsche Master-Slave, Malthus Nietzsche, Singer Urmson, Peter Singer, India Bengal, Singer India, ‘moral importance’, moral code, Philosophy Singer, singer tells, tell duty, moral obligation, bare minimum, drowning child, judeo-christian morality,