Why does Singer think there is no possible justification for discriminating against suffering people on geographical grounds?

Questions for “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” by Peter Singer

These questions focus mainly on the first third of the article…

  1. What do you see as the main conclusion that the author is defending?
  2. What are the main premises that support this conclusion? Here’s some help: Early on in the article Singer begins a sentence with “I begin with the assumption that…” This is definitely a clue that a premise will follow Then, within the next two or three paragraphs, Singer introduces two or three other statements that are central to his argument and support his conclusion
  3. An assumption or implied premise is an idea that is not explicitly stated in the article but is still key to the argument Are there any assumptions or implied premises that Singer makes that are really necessary to establish his conclusion and thus make his argument complete?
  1. Why does Singer think there is no possible justification for discriminating against suffering people on geographical grounds?
  1. What does Singer have to say to the objection that I am obligated to give no more than 5 pounds to the Bengal Relief Fund, because if I everyone were to give 5 pounds, that would alleviate the suffering?
  1. Finally, how should one go about evaluating a moral argument? When someone makes a moral claim, or argues for a moral claim, is it possible to analyze it, challenge it, or discuss it critically How do you think one should go about assessing the moral claims Singer makes in this article?

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Order now and Get a Discount!

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Order now and Get a Discount!