Kant vs. Singer

November 29, 2012 Singer VS. Kant Duty evoke be defined in numerous ways but what is difficult to know is what our honorable obligations are? Immanuel Kant and Peter Singer have attempted to find a more simple, rational, and supreme rule for what our duty is. Singer makes the distinction between humanity and duty. He attempts to show that we, in affluent countries such as the United States, have a moral obligation to give far more than we really do in international aid for famine relief, disaster relief and frequently more.According to the reading, Singer believes we need to drastically change our way of life in order to help others. He is making the argument that if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally signifi corporationt, we ought, morally, to do it (231). And he defines bad as suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care (231). The example he offers is a situation in which a lower-rank ing female child is drowning in a shallow pond. One can easily rescue her, but doing so would wreck ones advanced fifty-dollar shoes.Singer believes that morally, one needs to go in and save the girl. Anybody who would walk by and refuse to save her would be considered a horrible person. Then, he continues and introduces a different moral situation. A little girl is starving in a poor country. One can easily spend fifty dollars to save her life, but then one cannot use that currency to purchase a new pair of shoes. Again, one is faced with a choice do you save the little girl or buy new shoes? He believes that there is no moral difference between these two cases.In conclusion, he is saying that as a moral obligation, you should save the little girl in Africa instead of buying the new pair of shoes. People in affluent countries can prevent people dying from starvation by giving more property to famine relief without sacrificing anything morally significant. Therefore, they should . He believes that no matter how close or how far someone is, if you know you can prevent bad without generate, it is your moral obligation to do so. Sometimes, the excuse people use for not donating to charity is that they dont have much money right now but when they do, they will.Plus, they acknowledge the fact that there are other people who do have extra money at the time, so it is their responsibility. On the other hand, they also know that a lot of these people have the money but choose not to help. And the fact that they dont help does not justify a person with less means not to help. In the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant is looking to find an understanding of morality that can be drawn from first principles rather than from empirical experience, which is knowledge that we gain from experiences.Morality needs to be established in pure reason and not gained motley human experiences, but applicable to any and all rational beings. He is attempting to come up wit h a rational supreme principle of morality. He begins by addressing the idea of duty. Kant says that the but quality that is actually straightforward is heartfelt will. Any other quality can be accompanied by bad will. And honorable will is not good because of what it achieves, it is good for the reason to do it. He argues that reason must be meant to help us develop a good will.The purpose of having a good will is not to do good things, it is good in itself. And a persons will is only good if they are motivated by duty, not any selfish wants. The idea of a good will is supposed to be the idea of one who only makes decisions that she holds to be morally worthy, taking moral considerations to guide their behavior. Kant believes that the fundamental principle of our moral duties is a categorical imperative. A categorical imperative is a overshadow that expresses a general, unavoidable requirement of the moral law.Its three forms have universalizability, reward, and autonomy. Tog ether they establish an action that would be considered good only if we can will everyone to do it, it enables us to treat other people as ends and not as the means to our own selfish ends, and it allows us to see other persons as correlative law-makers in an ideal realm of ends. Kant believes that the difference between being motivated by a comprehend of duty in the ordinary sense and being motivated in his sense was that he thinks that motivation by duty is motivation by our respect for whatever law it is that makes our action a duty.Our respect for the laws that guide is qualified in the sense that we pick which is more or less important and which has more value. In contrasting and comparing Kants and Singers argument, I have come to the conclusion that Kants argument is more realistic than Singers. Singer is expecting everyone to accept the fact that part others, whether they are close or far, is ones duty and one must act upon it. He is being too optimistic to think that hu man being will give away what is not necessary and help the people who are starving instead. His argument is weak because it achievable. Singer is asking us to sacrifice too uch and this makes it unattainable. Kant on the other hand is acknowledging that the human species is rational and is always progressing towards the good. He believes that it is ones duty to raise ourselves from the unpolished state of our record and move forward towards humanity. He also knows that our actions will be based on pure reason. And he knows that the motivation for duty consists on the bare respect for lawfulness. These laws he speaks about are established by the city or the state and theyre a guide for our moral compass. His expectation of us is much more attainable and real.