Ethical Consideration in Sexual Orientation & Poverty
1.There can be no moral or ethical justification for discrimination against openly gay and lesbian persons in the areas of military service and marriage. Consider:The discrimination against gay persons is just another manifestation of the deep-rooted prejudice against the minorities in most societies; it has nothing to do with 'ethics.' It reflects the same kind of prejudice that was exhibited against the minority black population (and the women) for a long period of American history. Some opponents of homosexuality justify discrimination against gay marriages on the grounds that "it is against God's will" and the Bible considers homosexuality as sinful.1 This religious condemnation by no means makes homosexuality "immoral." Consider the fact that the Bible considers several other activities such as "eating of shell fish" (Leviticus 11:10), "working on Sundays" (Exodus 35:2), and even "playing football" (Leviticus 11:6-8) as sinful but allows an abhorrent institution such as slavery. Does this mean that "playing football" is immoral and keeping slaves is moral? ("Why same-sex marriage should be allowed?" n.d.)Similarly, opponents of allowing openly gay persons in military service claim that "unit cohesion" and military mora
His use of the 'lifeboat' analogy seems to be based on the premise that if a poor man in any part of the world becomes richer, a rich man in some other part necessarily becomes poorer by the same magnitude. Such practical shortcomings apart, Singer makes a compelling moral case in his article for the need and obligation of rich individuals to make a far bigger contribution towards relieving the appalling sufferings of those living in absolute poverty. " He then goes on to suggest: "if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it. Such sharing of a part of their wealth would not make the rich poor, but help the poor to have a better life. However, the problem lies in its practical application, i. " 2003) Moreover, countries such as the U. le will suffer if known homosexuals are allowed to serve side-by-side and share close quarters with heterosexuals. " Singer himself admits to have fallen short of his own ideal2 but claims that he gives about 25% of what he earns to NGO's involved in helping the poor in under-developed countries. To begin with, Hardin's underlying assumption that the acquisition and distribution of wealth is a 'zero-sum game' is erroneous. armed forces offered the same "unit cohesion" argument to oppose racially integrating military units, decades ago before President Truman rejected the argument and ordered the racial integration of the armed forces in 1948 ("Uniform Discrimination. , how far can one go in preventing 'something bad from happening' and how much is an individual morally obligated to prevent bad things from happening around the world?It follows from Singer's argument that a person living in an affluent country who is reasonably well off, ought to give as much of his wealth away to the poor (wherever in the world they may be) until he or she begins to "sacrifice anything of comparable moral importance"-say until he/ she reaches the level of "marginal utility.
Common topics in this essay:
Rich Poor,
Sundays Exodus,
Helping Poor,
Control Crude,
,
Canada Israel,
Finally Hardin,
God's Bible,
President Truman,
Peter Singer's,
population growth,
openly gay,
discrimination gay,
population growth rates,
unit cohesion,
people starve,
armed forces,
helping poor,
obligation rich,
growth rates,
prevent bad happening,
persons military service,
openly gay lesbian,
rich poor,
|
Acceptance Essays
