Kant vs. Singer

November 29, 2012 vocalist VS. Kant Duty apprize be defined in numerous instructions but what is difficult to k right off is what our honorable obligations atomic number 18? Immanuel Kant and Peter Singer confound attempted to find a to a greater extent than simple, rational, and ultimate rule for what our duty is. Singer makes the distinction between liberality and duty. He attempts to show that we, in affluent countries such as the join States, pick out a moralistic obligation to give far more than we actu completelyy do in international aid for paucity relief, misfortune relief and much more.According to the reading, Singer believes we need to drastically change our way of life in order to sustain others. He is making the p arentage that if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally signifi set upt, we ought, morally, to do it (231). And he defines bad as suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and aesculapian care (231). The example he offers is a situation in which a little girl is drowning in a shallow pond. One can easily rescue her, but doing so would wreck ones naked as a jaybird fifty-dollar shoes.Singer believes that morally, one needs to go in and save the girl. Anybody who would walk of life 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 esurient in a poor country. One can easily shake off fifty dollars to save her life, but then one cannot use that specie to purchase a new pair of shoes. Again, one is faced with a choice do you save the little girl or corrupt new shoes? He believes that there is no moral balance 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 mint dying from starvation by giving more money 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 sacrifice, it is your moral obligation to do so. Sometimes, the excuse volume use for not donating to benevolence is that they dont have much money right now but when they do, they will.Plus, they ac intimacy 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(prenominal) fashion not to help. In the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant is looking to find an understanding of righteousness that can be drawn from first doctrines rather than from empirical experience, which is knowledge that we gain from experiences.Morality needs to be established in pure age nt and not gained form humans experiences, but applicable to any and all rational beings. He is attempting to come up with a rational supreme principle of morality. He begins by addressing the idea of duty. Kant says that the altogether quality that is real severe is good will. Any other quality can be accompanied by bad will. And good 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 line their behavior. Kant believes that the fundamental principle of our moral duties is a categorical imperative. A categorical imperative is a command that expresses a general, unavoid able requirement of the moral law.Its three forms have universalizability, respect, and autonomy. Together 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 pull in other persons as mutual law-makers in an ideal nation of ends. Kant believes that the difference between being motivated by a wiz of duty in the ordinary sense and being motivated in his sense was that he counts that pauperism 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 occupation, I have come to the conclusion that Kants argument is more realistic than Singers. Singer is expecting everyone to accept the fact that circumstances others, whethe r they are close or far, is ones duty and one must act upon it. He is being too optimistic to think that humans will give away what is not necessary and help the people who are starving instead. His argument is weak because it achievable. Singer is request us to sacrifice too uch and this makes it un attainable. 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 stand ourselves from the unpolished state of our nature 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.