While I was reading singer’s article I was having a hard time really understanding his point of view and grasp what he was trying to convey in the article. I personally do not share the same points or moral beliefs so it made it extremely difficult to relate to the article. I believe singer’s article is primarily about how we can make simple changes in our life styles like, not buying designer clothing for fashion and the appeal to looking cool but, rather out of necessity for warmth and protection. By looking into our self and establishing a standard for everybody that we all should give something back to famine societies whether it is 1 dollar or 100 dollars but, not to the point where you start to hurt yourself or you immediately family either just enough where you still provide sufficiently for yourself and your family but, also the care of a famine society where someone does not have the luxuries that we have or the abilities’ to care and need for them self’s and their loved ones.
His arguments are what are the moral implications of this moral situation? While at the same time he states he will not be morally neutral and argue for his moral position that he takes. Secondly he argues that if we have the power to prevent something bad from happening that we ought, morally, to do it. While singer is defending his moral stand point and hoe his beliefs are tied into his article, singer, also makes some very good counter arguments on his position with his position on them as well. Beginning his paper you get the strong scene that he has a very strong moral stand point on the power to prevent something bad to happen. If we have the power to stop something bad from happening weather it is near or far why would you choose not to? You can take something with little moral siginanifance like a wet out fit to save something with a very high siginanifance like a young boy drowning in a shallow lake or you can give to famine charities where that will feed and clothe someone for a week and provide warmth and comfort. As he mentioned weather you are near or far the point is the same but you may have a different moral standpoint if it was rather far than near. Secondly is the proposal of the drastic revision of the moral scheme. While he is not taking a neutral stand point but rather his own conclusion and while he stats that it is a moral point of view that makes us look beyond our own interests of our own society. While at the time the article was written it was not feasible for this to work but in today’s society we as a whole have the power and abilities’ to make this a very real possibility for countries and famine society’s that are still in need of help and support. Lastly singers has another point he really came off as the relative suffering and finding a permanent solution to the ever growing population and inserting a standard guide line on number, to prevent and maintain a healthy manageable population. Singers concept on marginal utility at the moderate level is defined as giving to the society to a point where our self’s do not fall below that margin our self’s while at the same time providing a balance back to society however, it will likely stay at the high marginal utility and even though we have the means to stop and prevent and stop most bad things from happening we choose to stick to our own morality and not see the out sides. Singer also mentions duty and charity and how the two are seemingly the same and at the same time have become so different over time. Charity is something we do to help and support other who need it as well gives a scene of pride but, singer claims there is no real thing as a true charity due to all of the strings that are now attached on the other hand there is duty and that is something you are obligated to due. He mentions that they help and hurt each other because if there is too much charity they the lack of duty is prevalent and if there is lack of charity then the obligation of duty
