Greater Moral Benefit
This paper will contain my argument against the Greater Moral Benefit argument. To begin with I will analyze the Greater Moral Benefit Argument thoroughly in order to establish exactly what it means and the premises that make the argument valid. Then I will criticize the premise that I disagree with, which is the premise that states, "If we could easily save someone's life we ought to do it then it is also true that we ought to prevent any bad thing from happening if we can do so without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance." I will be arguing that one has no moral obligation to prevent any bad from happening. I will give the reasoning behind my argument and the reasons I believe the premise to be false. Then I will write about the suspected responses if the author, Peter Singer, were to hear my argument. To close the paper I will finish with my final response and defense of my argument against Singer's responding remarks. The Greater Moral Benefit argument states that one is morally obligated to do an act if it will produce the greater benefit for all. It states that if one has the means to prevent an evil act with negative effects then they are morally obligated to do this act. If this is true then one ought t
Our example preventing the disease and striving to learn without the prompting of a death, people cannot prevent everything. o prevent things within one's means thus we are obligated to prevent bad things if we are within the means to do so. After attention is drawn to it, doctors begin to research the problem. To err is human and we are not morally wrong for making human mistakes. This does not make us immoral for not contributing our life's endeavor to saving everyone. Also that there have been mistakes made that resulted in bad but then led too good. I will close with my final thought that to err is human nature, and to go against our nature would make us false. Or that if we had prevented the disease from happening then the person would not have had to die. Even if they have the means there is no way for people to prevent evils from happening. To just point the finger and say something is bad when you could have easily said something else was bad is arbitrary. Therefore, some bad things must happen in order for good things to occur. With this statement he probably would have said that the world would still have progressed and several people would have possibly benefitted. To be false would mean that we would have no morals at all. There is no set of rules that exist for all. The thing wrong with the author's reasoning is that they have no definite definition of what is bad.
Common topics in this essay:
Moral Benefit,
Responding Singer,
Benefit Argument,
Peter Singer,
prevent bad,
,
moral benefit argument,
bad happening,
prevent bad happening,
moral benefit,
progress world,
benefit argument,
morally obligated act,
morally wrong,
learn prompting,
evil mistakes,
prompting death,
morally obligated,
obligation prevent bad,
true ought prevent,
|
Acceptance Essays
