Essay on Peter Singer’s ethics
There exist different types of arguments in the media: categorical, propositional, analogical, causal, statistical arguments, etc. Among these, one can identify ethics-focused arguments which are referred to as moral arguments. The video named “Peter Singer’s ethics” contains numerous examples of moral arguments; in fact, moral argument is the kind of argument that Peter Singer predominantly uses in the video to convey his opinion.
The issue that Peter Singer addresses in his video is the moral value of the choices that people make in their lives and the choices that people choose not to make in their lives. The focus of Singer’s idea is on the fact that it is not sufficient to avoid harming people and other living beings; it is also important to consider whether personal choices contribute to making the world a better place, and whether the person’s choices are good in the moral sense. Singer supports his arguments with a vivid example: most people would choose to save a drowning boy and sacrifice a pair of expensive shoes in such situation, but at the same time many people choose to buy luxurious and expensive things despite the fact that they could save several boys by donating these money. In this case, Singer illustrates that it is easy to be “commonly” moral, but it is more difficult to evaluate own choices not only in evidently critical situations but in “ordinary” situations as well.
Singer uses the type of argument which is referred to as moral argument. According to Rainbolt & Dwyer (2014), a moral argument is such an argument the conclusion of which asserts something to be morally good or morally bad. The premises of Singer’s arguments are the following: it is morally good to care about other living beings and make choices that make the world better for others, and it is morally bad to cause suffering of other human beings and to avoid helping when there are resources available for helping. Hence, Singer implicitly concludes that purchasing luxurious goods is not moral as it is better to help the poor, and that eating meat is not moral because other sentient living beings have to suffer.
Singer’s view is approved from the deontological point of view. Deontological arguments rely on the specific intrinsic value of an action or a choice (Rainbolt & Dwyer, 2014). Singer ascribes positive moral value to helping other living beings and reducing their suffering. These intrinsic features are universalizable (Rainbolt & Dwyer, 2014) and it would be beneficial for the society if everyone shared such views. Therefore, Singer presents valid deontological moral arguments in his video.
Do you like this essay?
Our writers can write a paper like this for you!
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading...