Peter Singer and Altruism 伦理学小品

 
In this paper, I will discuss the principle made by Peter Singer, which states that if we will not sacrifice anything of comparable moral importance, then we are required to prevent these bad things from happening. I will explain this principle by examining two counterarguments against his principle. Then I will introduce the moderate version of this principle, which only requires us only give away things that are not morally significant. By comparing these two principles, I will suggest that Singer's first principle will bring out bad consequences. Therefore, we should follow the moderate version of Singer's principle, since what people need is better moral guidance. At the end of the paper, based on Singer's principle, I will further expound the principle by listing what are we morally required to do.
To start this argument, we need to assume what is bad for ordinary people. Using common sense, it is apparent that some kind of suffering or death around the world due to lack of food, clean water, or proper medical care is bad (Singer, 1972). Bearing this in mind, Singer then tries to persuade everyone to believe that if we will not give away anything of comparable moral importance, we ought to support those people who are in great misery (Singer, 1972). This can be clarified by the example below: University students need to pay for our higher education annually, and it costs a huge amount of money. However, based on Singer's principle, we might dispute this case by saying that though it is crucial for us to attain higher education, we should distribute this money to charity since the tuition fee might save thousands of people from living below the poverty line or even under the threat of death, and it is morally undeniable that saving thousands of people's lives is more important than getting ourselves educated.