Philosophy paper budget $13

Michael Naranjo

11am PHI2604

In his essay Singer cites it is morally impermissible to have such views like follow the crowd ethics, like that of Nazi Germany, where many Germans did not directly harm or kills Jews, they theoretically did so by overlooking the atrocities committed by the Nazis. An example from his essay, would be that of Carol, Dave, Emma, Fred to Ziggy, all choosing to save the car from the train instead of saving the child’s life.

He stated that we are morally obligated to donate to Unicef or Oxfam, now that I have read the essay and have the contact details of the organization.

The scenario for Bob to flip the switch to save the child’s life or his Bugatti, is an event that is highly unlikely to happen in a life scenario. Singer’s argument is that if someone can afford to purchase a luxurious product, then that person can and should donate to Unicef instead of purchasing any item that is not necessary to live.

If you live in the United States of America, chances are you have drank from a water fountain at school, or if you were a kid in the 90’s you drank from directly from the water hose while playing hide and seek, to avoid the chance of mom or dad cutting play time short. So, when it comes to safe, clean and highly accessible drinking water, we are extremely fortunate, compared to those living in third world countries, or even entire continents where access to clean water is not common or available at all.

That concept and security diminished for the entire community of Flint, Michigan in April 2014, when a group of officials toasted a glass of tap water- signaling a switch to the city’s new source water source.

On the same day, complaints poured in by resident’s, citing foul smelling water, rusty clouded water, that tasted of metal and seemed to cause skin rashes.

City officials were removed from office, some were arrested. Fast forward five years later, the community is still unable to drink from tap. Relying on bottled water, that is in constant short supply.

How does this happen in a first world country, with modern and innovative technology being released almost daily?

Should those in unaffected cities only drink the free and “safe” tap water, to donate money or bottles of drinking water to the affected community of Flint Michigan?

If this happened in Flint, who is to say this is not happening in our city, where politicians have a long history of corruption. Taking a look into the bottled water industry, is not one without controversy as well. Nestle, the Swiss, bottled water manufacturer is accused of environment harming water extraction techniques in Osceola county Michigan. The water is pumped at an astounding 400 gallons a minute, locals report a noticeable decrease in water levels, increase in water temperature, causing local wildlife such as trout to die. Adding, further to controversy, it is reported Nestle pays a whopping $200 license fee to pump the water for resale.

When Peter Singer calls himself a utilitarian, I believe it is due to his philosophy you should do what is in the best interest of the greater number removing the pleasure for yourself.

Two arguments that Singer write about in his essay are that of Bob’s decision to save his prized Bugatti or to save the life of a child whom he does not know. His second argument is that we should not purchase any sort of luxury all together, donating to save sick children instead.

Although Bob has a sort of connection to his Bugatti, and we as a society do not have a connection to any of the children Unicef intends to treat, we along with Bob, have a moral obligation to save the life of these children, whether it is directly or indirectly by donating the money we would otherwise spend on a luxury.

Charles and Diane, are happily married and are proud to call themselves parents to their extraordinarily talented 5 year old son, who is a piano prodigy, spelling bee champion and all around easy to parent son. Charles is an upstanding father who wants to have another child so for his son to grow up with. Although, Diane is content with just one child, she agrees as she loves Charles very much. During their first sonogram, it’s announced there is not one but two children in the womb.

Once the twins are born, it is discovered one is born with down syndrome, and, the other has severe brain damage due to the umbilical cord wrapped around his neck, stopping oxygen from reaching the brain. A few months later, distressed by the extra work and care demanded by the twins. Diane proposes sending the twins away for adoption or divorcing Charles, leaving him to care for all three children alone. Charles loves Diane very much, but the children come first so he signs the divorce papers and remains sole custodian of all three children.

I think Peter singer would agree with Charles decision to care for the children is supererogatory, as he could have easily sent the children for adoption, keeping his marriage in tact and caring for Brett who is very easy to manage. At the same time, Singer may argue that Diane’s decision to abandon her children and husband was morally wrong, as she chose pleasure above the family’s best interest.