Summarize the general argument of Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”. What is his conclusion? How does he reach this conclusion? You must cite specific evidence for your interpretations.

For
this paper you will analyze the arguments and approaches in Peter Singer’s
“Famine, Affluence, and Morality” (Pojman 412-420), Onora O’Neill’s “Kantian
Ethics and World Hunger” (Pojman 421-433), and Michael Slote’s “Famine,
Affluence, and Empathy” (available in Blackboard). Singer is a
consequentialist, O’Neill a deontologist, and Slote a virtue ethicist, but this
analysis should focus on the actual arguments in their papers, not on
general assumptions about the reasoning of consequentialists and deontologists.
This paper will serve as a background for your future ethical approach paper,
so try to make your analysis as clear and useful for understanding the
arguments as possible! For this paper, you should not focus on evaluation but
simply on analysis of arguments. In clearly distinguished sections, your paper
should do the following (and does not have to do anything else):
(1)
Summarize the general argument of Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”.
What is his conclusion? How does he reach this conclusion? You must cite
specific evidence for your interpretations.
(2)
Do the same with O’Neill’s “Kantian Ethics and World Hunger”. Again, you must
cite specific evidence for your interpretations.
(3)
Do the same with Slote’s “Famine, Affluence, and Empathy”. Again, you must cite
specific evidence for your interpretations.
(4)
Identify an example of Singer giving an argument based on consequences. What
kind of consequence does he treat as morally important? Are there other
consequences that someone could think important? How would focus on those
consequences change the reasoning?
(5)
Identify an example of O’Neill giving an argument based on obligations or moral
requirements. What requirement does she treat as morally important? Are there
other moral requirements that someone could think important? How would focus on
those requirements change the reasoning?
(6)
Identify an example of Slote giving an argument based on character, virtue, or
vice. What character traits does he treat as morally important? Are
there other character traits that someone could think important? How would
focus on those character traits change the reasoning?
(7)
In a brief paragraph, summarize what ideas the three arguments have in common
and how they differ.

Last Completed Projects