Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Peter Singer "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" is an essay written by Peter Singer in 1971 and published in Philosophy & Public Affairs in 1972. It argues that affluent persons are morally obligated to donate far more resources to humanitarian causes than is considered normal in Western cultures.
He wrote the book Animal Liberation (1975), in which he argues for vegetarianism, and the essay "Famine, Affluence, and Morality", which argues the moral imperative of donating to help the poor around the world. For most of his career, he was a preference utilitarian.
Singer, in his 1972 essay "Famine, Affluence, and Morality", [15] wrote: It makes no moral difference whether the person I can help is a neighbor's child ten yards away from me or a Bengali whose name I shall never know, ten thousand miles away ... The moral point of view requires us to look beyond the interests of our own society.
The principle of equal consideration of interests is a moral principle that states that one should both include all affected interests when calculating the rightness of an action and weigh those interests equally. [1]
Moral philosopher Peter Singer laid the foundations for effective altruism and earning to give in his 1971 essay "Famine, Affluence and Morality" and since advocated for donating considerable amounts of one's income to effective charitable organizations. [4]
Shelly Kagan, The Limits of Morality, 1989; Allan Gibbard, Wise Choices, Apt Feelings: A Theory Of Normative Judgment, 1990; Joan Tronto, Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care, 1993; Annette Baier, Moral Prejudices: Essays on Ethics, 1994; Michael A. Smith, The Moral Problem, 1994; Christine Korsgaard, The Sources of ...
The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty is a 2009 book by Australian philosopher Peter Singer, in which the author argues that citizens of affluent nations are behaving immorally if they do not act to end the poverty they know to exist in developing nations.
The demandingness objection is a common [1] [2] argument raised against utilitarianism and other consequentialist ethical theories. The consequentialist requirement that we maximize the good impartially seems to this objection to require us to perform acts that we would normally consider optional.