Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality

Want to read the rest of this paper? Join Essayworld today to view this entire essay and over 50,000 other term papers

ought morally to do so. There are many factors in this case that come into play such as whether the child is close or far, could someone else save him, and whether we know the child or not. By donating sums of money, Singer does not believe any man should be patted on the back, but simply fulfilling his moral duties. Nonetheless, The issue of the drowning child is more of a psychological issue of justification then of morality.
Not only does singer argue logically in his attempts to get you to admit to your moral obligations, he also argues against fallacious claims in rebuttal to his argument. One type of fallacy he addresses is “tu quoque”. “Tu quoque” essentially means that because most people aren’t doing whatever the obligation is at hand, then that person should not have to either. This in fact, has nothing to do with moral ought and contributes nothing to the argument. Another fallacy singer combats is the “slippery slope” fallacy. In the article, it is mentioned that ...

Get instant access to over 50,000 essays. Write better papers. Get better grades. Already a member? Login

CITE THIS PAGE: