Aber der ist wichtig, damit ich mein Leben altruistischer gestalten kann. Admittedly, the introductions are nearly as long as the original essay and updated article, but the whole thing is worth a read. The author argues that, from a purely moral standpoint, it is wrong NOT to reduce ourselves to near the poverty line and give all our excess in order to reduce the suffering of others, no matter how far away they are.
Collections of Essays 1.
Overall View Utilitarianism is a philosophical view or theory about how we should evaluate a wide range of things that involve choices that people face. Among the things that can be evaluated are actions, laws, policies, character traits, and moral codes.
Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism because it rests on the idea that it is the consequences or results of actions, laws, policies, etc. In general, whatever is being evaluated, we ought to choose the one that will produce the best overall results.
Utilitarianism appears to be a simple theory because it consists of only one evaluative principle: Do what produces the best consequences.
In fact, however, the theory is complex because we cannot understand that single principle unless we know at least three things: Jeremy Bentham answered this question by adopting the view called hedonism. According to hedonism, the only thing that is good in itself is pleasure or happiness.
Likewise, on the negative side, a lack of food, friends, or freedom is instrumentally bad because it produces pain, suffering, and unhappiness; but pain, suffering and unhappiness are intrinsically bad, i.
Many thinkers have rejected hedonism because pleasure and pain are sensations that we feel, claiming that many important goods are not types of feelings.
Being healthy or honest or having knowledge, for example, are thought by some people to be intrinsic goods that are not types of feelings. Other thinkers see desires or preferences as the basis of value; whatever a person desires is valuable to that person.
If desires conflict, then the things most strongly preferred are identified as good. This debate will not be further discussed in this article.
Utilitarian reasoning can be used for many different purposes. It can be used both for moral reasoning and for any type of rational decision-making. In addition to applying in different contexts, it can also be used for deliberations about the interests of different persons and groups.
When individuals are deciding what to do for themselves alone, they consider only their own utility. For example, if you are choosing ice cream for yourself, the utilitarian view is that you should choose the flavor that will give you the most pleasure. If you enjoy chocolate but hate vanilla, you should choose chocolate for the pleasure it will bring and avoid vanilla because it will bring displeasure.
In addition, if you enjoy both chocolate and strawberry, you should predict which flavor will bring you more pleasure and choose whichever one will do that. Because Bentham and other utilitarians were interested in political groups and public policies, they often focused on discovering which actions and policies would maximize the well-being of the relevant group.
Their method for determining the well-being of a group involved adding up the benefits and losses that members of the group would experience as a result of adopting one action or policy. The well-being of the group is simply the sum total of the interests of the all of its members.
To illustrate this method, suppose that you are buying ice cream for a party that ten people will attend. Your only flavor options are chocolate and vanilla, and some of the people attending like chocolate while others like vanilla.
As a utilitarian, you should choose the flavor that will result in the most pleasure for the group as a whole.CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF PETER SINGER’S “FAMINE, AFFLUENCE AND MORALITY” In his article “Famine, Affluence and Morality” Peter Singer gives a seemingly devastating critique of our ordinary ways of thinking about famine relief, charity, and morality in general.
In various written work, notably the article “Famine, Affluence and Morality” [FAM], Peter Singer argues that people living in affluent societies have a duty to help those in famine- stricken countries, and that this duty is so compelling that it requires a fundamental change.
MELBOURNE – From , when Mao Zedong’s communists triumphed in China’s civil war, until the collapse of the Berlin Wall 40 years later, Karl Marx’s historical significance was unsurpassed. The problem is that to give an account of this notion involves nothing less than a full-fledged ethical theory; and while I am myself inclined toward a utilitarian view, it was my aim in writing "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" to produce an argument which would appeal not only to utilitarians, but also to anyone who accepted the initial premises of .
In Peter Singer’s article Famine, Affluence, and Morality, he describes the dire situation that nine million refugees faced in East Bengal in and urges the wealthier, or affluent, nations to take immediate and long term moral actions to stop the spread of extreme global poverty - Singer Critique: Famine, Affluence, and Morality.
Start studying Singer: Famine, Affluence, and Morality. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools.