Peter Singer Analysis

Many would agree that murder is the most morally atrocious and impermissible thing that an autonomous being can commit. As well, many would agree that there is a certain moral obligation that everyone should have to their fellow man, and hence feel some obligation to help prevent the suffering of a fellow man if the opportunity presents itself. However, how far does that obligation stretch? Does it go beyond the bounds of only being morally responsible for the circumstances that you can see in front of you? Or are people in a way just as much responsible for all the suffering throughout the world that we have the capability to help prevent; such as the suffering of the global poor. Philosopher Peter Singer argues that there is such an obligation to the global poor and that the failure to do so is the morally equivalent to murder. To support this, he brings up the thought experiment of the drowning boy, whereas you have the opportunity to save a drowning boy in exchange for ruining your new shoes and being late to work …show more content…
Bogging down the argument in the selfish aspects of the individual, who at most if they do work to combat global suffering is minimally affected detracts from the severity of the problem that is being addressed. What is important is the suffering the absolute poor face, and if the justification to help them is not helping them is murder, then what justification would exist? Singer’s justification still is not enough to truly compel most people into acting, and if the possibility of being a murderer is not enough then no other justification would be either, and any other would be even less compelling. Hence, it is better to assume Peter’s assertion is the case and convince more people to act. Or on a micro-level, is it not better to take Singer at face value and save lives, or at worst Singer be wrong and have still saved