Scribd
Upload
16 views1 page

Costales Assignment 2

Errol M. Costales discusses Singer's argument that individuals have a moral obligation to help those in need, regardless of their location, emphasizing that supporting others is a duty rather than charity. Singer asserts that preventing harm when possible is a moral imperative, and he encourages donations to relief agencies over luxury purchases. While there are no direct consequences for not giving, Costales highlights that there are various ways to help, including volunteering and supporting charitable causes.

Uploaded by

Fifigigigigiggo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
16 views1 page

Costales Assignment 2

Errol M. Costales discusses Singer's argument that individuals have a moral obligation to help those in need, regardless of their location, emphasizing that supporting others is a duty rather than charity. Singer asserts that preventing harm when possible is a moral imperative, and he encourages donations to relief agencies over luxury purchases. While there are no direct consequences for not giving, Costales highlights that there are various ways to help, including volunteering and supporting charitable causes.

Uploaded by

Fifigigigigiggo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Errol M.

Costales

Do you agree with Singer that one has that moral obligation especially
given the Utilitarian stance? If yes, how do we require people to give? If
no, as a student, how can you alleviate suffering and poverty in the
world--for example, you see a beggar asking for food or change? Are there
any consequences if one does not give to the least in the community?

Singer wants to convince us to go beyond the boundaries of our daily encounters and into the
larger world, extending a helping hand to our neighbors and those in other countries.
Regarding moral code consistency, location is irrelevant; supporting others in distant countries is
not charity but a duty. He wants us to do everything we can to help those in need in other
countries, whether by donating to relief groups or supporting people who need help. Singer
presents different justifications for his argument that it is our responsibility to help those in
need, no matter how far they are. Some include, "If it is in our power to prevent something bad
from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we
ought, morally, to do it" (Singer). Another reason he gives is that donating to relief agencies
meets an immediate need, whereas buying new apparel does not. The same amount of money
could prevent someone from starving to death, or you can buy fancy clothes to appear "well-
dressed" (Singer). Singer's argument is strong because it is difficult to argue against his
fundamental argument that we should help people in need whenever possible. It's based on
statements that nearly everyone would agree with, and in today's globally connected world, it's
simple to overcome the passivity that long distances may induce in people. There are no
consequences if one does not give to the least in the community. Donating money and finding
his argument appealing represent questions because knowing something is morally good does
not always imply doing it; donating money is not the only option to aid people in different
countries. Many other behaviors, such as volunteering in certain places, might be equally
beneficial. When the opportunity arises, such as when the cashier asks if I want to contribute to
a worthy cause, I give money to aid organizations.

You might also like