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 to prevent things within one's means thus we are obligated to prevent bad things if we are within the means to do so. This is the argument presented in it's most valid and convincing form.
             My problem with this argument is that I don't agree with the second premise. I argue that we have no obligation to prevent any bad from happening. The thing wrong with the author's reasoning is that they have no definite definition of what is bad. Badness is varied from person to person depending on their own personal views. Who is it that can accurately determine what is bad for all? For a valid example: Acts are right or wrong only if there is some set of rules that apply to all. ...