This prohibition dates back unbroken to the creation of a Canadian jurisdiction, and was in existence under British law prior to that. Peter Singer has recently asked whether zoophilia is always worthy of legal sanction and moral condemnation. Singer wonders whether instances of zoophilic contact that cause no apparent harm to participants can rightly be considered liable to such sanction or condemnation. Critics of Singer's stance most frequently cite the supposed inability of a nonhuman animal to render genuine consent to zoophilic contacts as sufficient grounds to make zoophilia morally problematic without exception.
Some Objections and Replies to the Argument by Analogy Our money is unlikely to reach its target, given all of the obstacles and uncertainties involved objection to premise 4. Premise 3 does not follow merely from the fact that Bob could have helped the child by sacrificing something less valuable.
What is needed is an additional premise to the effect that he is the only person who could do so.
This is true in the case of Bob, but is false as it applies to any of us it is not true that only you can save a child. Therefore, the argument is unsound. Singer denies that the additional premise is required. This is enough to show that we have a moral obligation. To think otherwise is to be guilty of follow-the-crowd ethics.
It is unrealistic to expect people to live up to their moral obligations if their obligations require large sacrifices. No one said that meeting our moral obligations is easy.
Moreover, if we recognize our moral obligations and choose not to meet them, then that is still better than not even recognizing them — Singer: It would be better if foreign aid were all handled by the government. That way, the burden would be spread more fairly across all taxpayers.
Perhaps that would be better, but our moral obligations are determined by facts in the actual world. In the actual world, the government will not do enough to aid starving people in other countries.
So, unless the situation changes, we each have an obligation to sacrifice. Later, we will look at other, more serious objections….Famine, Affluence, and Morality – Peter Singer. In this article, Singer addresses the question of what duties, if any, we owe to those who are in great need. 1. The Moral Considerability of Animals.
To say that a being deserves moral consideration is to say that there is a moral claim that this being can make on those who can recognize such claims. Sep 05, · Rhetorical Analysis “Singer’s Solution to World Poverty” In his essay “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer claims that the solution to world poverty is for Americans to donate all income not required for necessities to overseas aid organizations.
Dec 17, · Peter Singer is the Ira W. DeCamp professor of bioethics at the Center for Human Values at Princeton University. Peter Singer was recently interviewed by Kate O’Toole on Triple J’s current affairs program, rutadeltambor.com the interview and ensuing discussion, Singer raised some interesting points with one central theme: the rich world (that’s us) have a moral obligation to give a significant percentage of .
Peter Singer’s Extremely Altruistic Heirs Forty years after it was written, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” has spawned a radical new movement.