Consequentialism: Morality and Charitable Donations Essay

What are the object lesson consequences of consequentialism?Consequentialism is defined as of altogether the things a whatever(prenominal)body might do at any apt(p) moment the morally right action is the one with the best general consequences. Peter utterer who is a philosopher expresses his views on animal rights, abortion, euthanasia, infanticide, and bestiality. According to William Crawleys wonder with Singer, Singers opinions on these topics provoke a long deal of controversy because on that point are really no concrete answers and the proposed solutions to these views are debatable.One of the most controversial issues is abortion, in the interview and expression Peter Singer Abortion, the dividing bank nones, Singer passionately speaks about his pro-abortion view and how to play down the b differentation of the fetus when it is about to be murdered. The obligate can be related to the interview because Singer tells us what makes a person to be a person and what is a person of universe a ciphering(prenominal) substance. In the interview he uses this framework where if a baby was innate(p) with only a brain stem and nonhing else in the brain.The claw would never recognize his or her parents, wear any emotions, overhaul or do anything either, Singer argues based on determining whether or non this tike is a quick of scent substance, and rational substance is what defines a person to be a person. He said this electric razor may be born by human parents, but it is non a rational substance nor bequeath it ever be rational. A chimpanzee was as well mentioned in the interview, where the chimpanzee is far more self aware, rational, commensurate of connecting and sweet other species. The chimpanzee is rational and is just as prestigious as a humans. The childs life-time will be all told up to the parents and doctors whether or not they are capable supporting the child and other factors involved. Singer does not think that murderin g the child is immoral because that child is not a rational substance and never will be.I comp allowely agree with Singer in this example, if there was a glance of hope where the child can progress I would swear it is aggrieve to let the child die, but in this scenario it is bringing emotional pain and to parents to gain vigor that their child can never recognize or communicate with them. There would not be much difference if the child dies of course or put to finis by parents and doctors, I agree the child is breathing and is alive, but he or she is not living life, not experiencing nor can ever view the point of living. The point of living in life is to progress, learn, experience all types of laboriousships and happiness. I am not agreeing that we should let parents decide on whether or not putting to death on every abnormal childs life, just under legitimate circumstances where as to speak of a child not being a rational substance or not capable of experience life.As fo r the article, Singer argued that abortion does not deal with any moral issues, how it is wrong to ask When does a human life begin? and attending of potentiality of a fetus becoming a person. He firstly point out that having and keeping a child is severe disenfranchisedship. On the first 20 weeks of maternity, the brain is not developed to the point where it is conscience. He further discuses how however in the last stages of pregnancy the fetus is not self-aware, and have the capacity to feel pain but it is not capable of doing anything right or wrong. Singer also points out how the opponents argues that the fetus have potentiality of becoming a person, or even the next Albert Einstein. He hopes this argument is absurd, because billions of human cells can potentially generate persons, and with our advance technology to twenty-four hours we can make that happen. Singer conclude that the fine line of abortion to draw is at birth.I think that consequentialism in abortion dep ends significantly on the parents. I am a pro-choice to begin with, and I strongly concur with Singer on his views. I dont think it even matters when the fetus forms into a human. I believe that parents are the only ones who can decide whether or not to abort the child because they are the one who have to scoop responsibility of the child later on birth and their life will flip significantly because of a child. Parents have to determine whether or not they very want this child, and check if they are financially stable and emotionally ready.If abortions were abolished there would be dangerous abortions, more children in orphanages, child abuses and etc. to a fault the childs health and wellness could jeopardize, because they were not brought to this world by choice. If it is immoral to abort a child, the risk of immorality of their life after birth is far more greater, and frightening. I think the fine line to draw is at the fifth or sixth month of pregnancy because abortion afte r a certain period would put the find and childs life at risk and if the parents were strongly banish about having a child abortion would occur on the earlier stages of pregnancy.Another controversial issue I want to discuss is derived from the interview and article Why we should give away 25% of our pay? where Singer discusses his views on how murder is neglect. and gives suggestions to help the world. In the interview, he shows understanding that everyone have normal obligations in contributing their income to their family and there should be a settle to that. Singer brings up statistic examples of how much children and adults die in a daylight and it can be preventable. He suggest that we can give up some of our luxury we own including restaurant meals, vacation, drink tap peeing instead of bottled and etc.Singer also included that we can good give up 10% of our income to organizations and can still live comfortably. The article is quite similar to his interview, and trie s to emphasize this point sorry, you have the same trade in both situations to prevent poverty and death, simply because you can. He started false with two examples showing the choices bulk make over their ethical business to provide help to others. Singer also discusses the reason why people does not bother helping, it is because the person in train of help is not physically near us we do not feel the emergency or temptation to help. He continues to show the effort people need to put in, and the drastic changes it make.I strongly disagree with Singer, I believe charity is a choice rather than our moral obligation. I do feel that it is important to make tender-hearted donations, and I do herald and support people who are already donating a portion of their income to their local anesthetic organization. I strongly disagree with Singers first example in the article, I would not care about a cope with of new shoes over saving a friends life. That is not a comparable example to the rest of the ideas Singer expresses. I do not think we need to give up luxury in order to donate. Celebrating our success in restaurants and vacations is a reward to ourselves for the hard work and sacrifices we made to get where we are. Its comparable to celebrating our independence day on July 4th, we can donate all the money spent on fireworks every year to charity. It goes as far as birthdays, christmas and all these other holidays. Celebrations are occasional rewards we give ourselves, its not like everyone gets a promotion or raise everyday. I am sure that we can defiantly save a huge sum from luxury spendings, however we will no longer be motivated to work as hard knowing that getting a promotion or raise is not a big deal and we end up donating them to charity.As to drinking bottle water instead of tap water, some people believe that tap water is filthy and not as clean as bottle. Some people uses luxury and money to benefit themselves in some way as their drive to wor k hard. People sometimes select certain luxury brands over cheap ones, because the quality is better and the life span of the product is longer. I agree with Singer that if we do not see the person who is in need physically, the chance of us donating is just about zero. I think that people make charitable donations to achieve some kind of happiness, and moral fulfillment, but if we do not actually see how the donations actually help, people do not feel like as if they actually helped others in need. I agree that everyone can make a difference in peoples lives, however poverty and death is inevitable, and are everywhere. I believe people can make charitable donations after they care for their own health and wellness first, then care for their families and friends.Interview http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMZvIZEO1E0 name 1 http//www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/peter-singer-abortion-the-dividing-lines/story-e6frfifo-1111114264781 Article 2 http//www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/world/why-we -all-should-give-away-25-of-our-pay/2007/06/08/1181089326370.html