Question

One of Peter Singer’s arguments relies on a claim about when we are obligated to prevent bad things from happening to others. What is that claim?

		If you can prevent something bad from happening, then you are morally obligated to prevent it, unless preventing it would require making a significant personal sacrifice
		If you can prevent something bad from happening, then you are morally obligated to prevent it, unless preventing it would require violating someone’s moral rights
		If you can prevent something bad from happening, then you are morally obligated to prevent it, provided you would not thereby be sacrificing something of comparable moral importance
		If you can prevent something bad from happening, then you are morally obligated to prevent it, even if the costs to you would be greater than the benefits to others.

Which of the following claims does Peter Singer make about the “Bugatti” and “Inheritance” cases? Select all that apply.

		There is no morally significant difference between what Bob does in Bugatti and what you do in Inheritance
		The fact that the child in Bugatti is closer than the child in Inheritance makes what you do in Inheritance less wrong than what Bob does in Bugatti (but still seriously wrong)
		The fact that many people are in a position to donate to charity but fail to do so makes what you do in Inheritance less wrong than what Bob does in Bugatti (but still seriously wrong)
		If what Bob does in Bugatti is seriously wrong, then what you do in Inheritance is seriously wrong

Answer 1

sol:

Peter Singer, is a rationalistic philosopher. He teaches "practical ethics," which he describes as the application of philosophy rather than religious principles to practical problems based on metaphysical reasoning.

His theory is that hungry children will be more valuable to our surplus wealth than they are to us. A desperately poor person will be much happier with $200 that we don't need for survival, while it would only boost our happiness a little.

Singer argues that donating to charity' is neither benevolent nor compassionate where poverty in the world is concerned; it is no more than our responsibility and it would be wrong not to donate. He says we have a responsibility, simply because we can, to reduce suffering and death.

A common practise in the United States is giving to charity. It is not universal, however, as many individuals do not donate money. According to Singer, therefore, if individuals do not donate to charity to help end these sufferings, then it means that they are unethical. If they are willing to, people have an ethical duty to donate money.