Discussion

I’m studying for my Philosophy class and need an explanation.

Watch this short video:

(Links to an external site.)

Peter Singer argues here that YOU are morally obligated to give all your disposable income to save starving, dying children in third world countries unless and until the crisis is stopped. He supports this conclusion by giving an analogical argument about saving a drowning child.

THEN WATCH:

Andrew Kuper Debates the Philosopher Peter Singer

In one paragraph explain Peter Singer’s argument for giving away most of your money.

Then in another paragraph explain Kuper’s argument against this idea.

Finally explain which view you agree with more and why?

After this initial response, reply and respond to other students’ answers as described below at least 250-300 words.

Then respond to a minimum of three other student’s postings. To reply to another student’s posting, submit a threaded reply (“Reply” button) to that student’s message. Each reply should be a minimum of 100 words. So a short answer response such as “Good point” or “That’s wrong” is not an acceptable response to earn any points. Neither is saying, “I like what you said, when you wrote “………………” and you just REPEAT what another student says to get the required word count. Fee free to offer an ANTITHESIS to another student’s claims. But, please remember to post answers and responses in a respectful and reasonable manner, rather than in a reactive, emotional, or derogatory way. In other words, be polite