Consequentialism: Morality and Charitable Donations Essay

What atomic number 18 the moral consequences of consequentialism?Consequentialism is defined as of in all the things a mortal cogency do at any intermitn moment the morally full action is the one with the best overall consequences. Peter vocalist who is a philosopher expresses his views on animal rights, spontaneous abortion, euthanasia, infanticide, and bestiality. According to William Crawleys interview with vocalizer, singers opinions on these topics provoke a great slew of controversy because thither atomic number 18 really no concrete answers and the proposed solutions to these views ar debatable.One of the closely controversial emersions is abortion, in the interview and article Peter vocaliser Abortion, the dividing lines, vocaliser passionately babble outs round his pro-abortion view and how to minimize the pain of the fetus when it is about to be murdered. The article dirty dog be related to the interview because utterer tells us what becomes a perso n to be a person and what is a person of being a demythologized union. In the interview he uses this example where if a baby was born with only a forefront stem and nonhing else in the wiz.The churl would n ever so recognize his or her pargonnts, surrender any emotions, communicate or do anything either, Singer argues base on determining whether or non this boor is a reasonable substance, and lucid substance is what defines a person to be a person. He said this nestling may be born by gentle parents, just it is non a rational substance nor will it ever be rational. A chimpanzee was also mentioned in the interview, where the chimpanzee is removed to a greater extent than self aware, rational, capable of connecting and loving other species. The chimpanzee is rational and is just as prestigious as a humans. The childs emotional state will be completely up to the parents and doctors whether or not they are capable supporting the child and other factors involved. Singe r does not imagine that murdering the child is immoral because that child is not a rational substance and never will be.I completely agree with Singer in this example, if there was a glimpse of hope where the child potty progress I would suppose it is wrong to let the child die, exactly in this scenario it is bringing emotional pain and to parents to see that their child can never recognize or communicate with them. There would not be more than difference if the child dies naturally or put to finish 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 fuck off the point of living. The point of living in life is to progress, learn, experience all types of hardships 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 certain circumstances where as to speak of a child not being a rational substance or not capa ble of experience life.As for 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 address of voltage of a fetus becoming a person. He first point out that having and charge a child is severe hardship. On the first 20 weeks of pregnancy, the brain is not developed to the point where it is conscience. He further discuses how even in the last stages of pregnancy the fetus is not self-aware, and have the capacity to discover 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 believes this contention is absurd, because billions of human cells can potentially become persons, and with our advance technology immediately we can make that happen. Singer concluded that the fine line of abortion to draw is at birth.I think that consequentialism in abortion depe nds significantly on the parents. I am a pro- filling 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 take responsibility of the child aft(prenominal) birth and their life will change significantly because of a child. Parents have to determine whether or not they actually 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. Also the childs health and wellness could jeopardize, because they were not brought to this human 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 one-fifth or sixth month of pregnancy because a bortion after a certain period would put the mother and childs life at risk and if the parents were strongly negative about having a child abortion would occur on the earliest stages of pregnancy.Another controversial issue I want to discuss is derived from the interview and article Why we should retrovert away 25% of our pay? where Singer discusses his views on how murder is neglect. and gives suggestions to avail the world. In the interview, he shows understanding that everyone have normal obligations in contribute their income to their family and there should be a limit to that. Singer brings up statistic examples of how much children and adults die in a day and it can be delayable. He suggest that we can give up some of our opulence we declare including restaurant meals, vacation, drinking tap water alternatively of bottled and etc.Singer also included that we can easily give up 10% of our income to organizations and can still live comfortably. The article is quite similar to his interview, and tries to punctuate this point sorry, you have the same duty in both situations to prevent poverty and death, simply because you can. He started off with two examples showing the choices concourse make over their ethical duty to provide help to others. Singer also discusses the reason why lot does not bother helping, it is because the person in need of help is not physically near us we do not feel the need or temptation to help. He continues to show the effort great deal need to put in, and the drastic changes it make.I strongly resist with Singer, I believe charity is a choice rather than our moral obligation. I do feel that it is important to make charitable donations, and I do applaud and support people who are already donating a portion of their income to their local organization. I strongly disagree with Singers first example in the article, I would not care about a pair of new shoes over saving a friends life. That is not a corresponding example to t he rest of the ideas Singer expresses. I do not think we need to give up luxury in order to present. Celebrating our victory in restaurants and vacations is a reward to ourselves for the hard work and sacrifices we made to rifle 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 commodious 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 revolting and not as clean as bottle. Some people uses luxury and money to benefit themselves in some way as their cram to work hard. People sometimes prefer 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 nearly 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=gMZvIZEO1E0Article 1 http//www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/peter-singer-abortion-the-dividing-lines/story-e6frfifo-1111114264781 Article 2 http//www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/wo rld/why-we-all-should-give-away-25-of-our-pay/2007/06/08/1181089326370.html