"Famine, Affluence and Morality", Article by Peter Singer
Singer also writes that if we changed the Pond Case so that there were twenty people passing by, each of them would still be morally obligated to save the child, regardless of what the others did. And the same is for people starving in Bengal.
Another objection one might raise is vagueness. Singer says we should help as long as our helping does not sacrifice "anything morally significant". But what actually counts as "morally significant"? One person might think that saving his clothes from getting muddy is morally significant, while other might think that being on time, for example, for a job interview (and not saving a child) is morally significant.
I think that Singer makes us all think what kind of lives we are living, and re-evaluate our priorities in lives ad well.
E-pasta adrese, uz kuru nosūtīt darba saiti:
Saite uz darbu: