SUS1501
SUS1501
ASSIGNMENT 6 SEMESER
2023
, SUS1501 ASSIGNMENT 06
1. Tell us what your original answer to the question above was AND why;
My preferred is F. I feel it is unethical, egotistical, and morally reprehensible for people to
prioritise their own interests over the rights of other animals, such as polar bears." Polar
bears have a right to life as well. Polar bears are culturally significant to Arctic people,
and they are top predators in their food system. That is, they play an important role in
maintaining the equilibrium of their ecosystem.
2. Tell us what your current answer is AND why;
I still prefer option F. Polar bears are at the top of the food chain and play a vital part in
the marine environment's overall health. Polar bears have also played an essential role in
the cultures and economies of Arctic peoples for thousands of years. Polar bears spend
so much of their time on the Arctic Ocean's sea ice that they are categorised as marine
mammals. They are skilled swimmers who spend more than half of their time foraging
for food, primarily seals. Expansion of oil and gas production in their ecosystem might be
disastrous. Direct contact with spilt oil would kill polar bears, but an invisible threat
might linger for years, as poisonous compounds staying in ice or water could affect the
Arctic ecosystem's entire food web for years to come.
3. Answer the question: "So where do I fit in in relation to this?" (Think back to the
section on virtue ethics); and finally
According to Singer, this 'uncontroversial' concept of altruism "requires us only to
prevent what is bad... and it requires this of us only when we can do it without sacrificing
anything that is, from a moral standpoint, comparably important." Thus, all else being
equal, there is no moral justification for not doing everything in our power to alleviate
the suffering of individuals dying from a lack of food, shelter, and medical care,
regardless of geographical closeness or distance. Just because they are hundreds of
kilometers away, for example, does not absolve us of the obligation to donate the
money we would have spent on a luxury item to an international relief organisation. "If
we have the ability to prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing
anything of comparable moral importance, we should do it morally." "By 'without
sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance,' I mean without causing anything
else comparably bad to happen, or doing something wrong in and of itself, or failing to
promote some moral good comparable in importance to the bad thing that we can
prevent." Singer claims that this 'uncontroversial' principle of altruism "needs us just to
prevent what is bad... and it requires this of us only when we can do it without
surrendering anything morally comparable'. Thus, all else being equal, there is no moral
justification for not doing everything in our power to alleviate the suffering of individuals
dying from a lack of food, shelter, and medical care, regardless of geographical closeness
or distance. Just because they are hundreds of kilometers away, for example, does not
absolve us of the obligation to donate the money we would have spent on a luxury item
to an international relief organisation.
SUS1501
ASSIGNMENT 6 SEMESER
2023
, SUS1501 ASSIGNMENT 06
1. Tell us what your original answer to the question above was AND why;
My preferred is F. I feel it is unethical, egotistical, and morally reprehensible for people to
prioritise their own interests over the rights of other animals, such as polar bears." Polar
bears have a right to life as well. Polar bears are culturally significant to Arctic people,
and they are top predators in their food system. That is, they play an important role in
maintaining the equilibrium of their ecosystem.
2. Tell us what your current answer is AND why;
I still prefer option F. Polar bears are at the top of the food chain and play a vital part in
the marine environment's overall health. Polar bears have also played an essential role in
the cultures and economies of Arctic peoples for thousands of years. Polar bears spend
so much of their time on the Arctic Ocean's sea ice that they are categorised as marine
mammals. They are skilled swimmers who spend more than half of their time foraging
for food, primarily seals. Expansion of oil and gas production in their ecosystem might be
disastrous. Direct contact with spilt oil would kill polar bears, but an invisible threat
might linger for years, as poisonous compounds staying in ice or water could affect the
Arctic ecosystem's entire food web for years to come.
3. Answer the question: "So where do I fit in in relation to this?" (Think back to the
section on virtue ethics); and finally
According to Singer, this 'uncontroversial' concept of altruism "requires us only to
prevent what is bad... and it requires this of us only when we can do it without sacrificing
anything that is, from a moral standpoint, comparably important." Thus, all else being
equal, there is no moral justification for not doing everything in our power to alleviate
the suffering of individuals dying from a lack of food, shelter, and medical care,
regardless of geographical closeness or distance. Just because they are hundreds of
kilometers away, for example, does not absolve us of the obligation to donate the
money we would have spent on a luxury item to an international relief organisation. "If
we have the ability to prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing
anything of comparable moral importance, we should do it morally." "By 'without
sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance,' I mean without causing anything
else comparably bad to happen, or doing something wrong in and of itself, or failing to
promote some moral good comparable in importance to the bad thing that we can
prevent." Singer claims that this 'uncontroversial' principle of altruism "needs us just to
prevent what is bad... and it requires this of us only when we can do it without
surrendering anything morally comparable'. Thus, all else being equal, there is no moral
justification for not doing everything in our power to alleviate the suffering of individuals
dying from a lack of food, shelter, and medical care, regardless of geographical closeness
or distance. Just because they are hundreds of kilometers away, for example, does not
absolve us of the obligation to donate the money we would have spent on a luxury item
to an international relief organisation.
