Peter Singer

In Singer’s “Famine Affluence and Morality” he gives us a very tight argument which could easily be
summed up in less than a page. For this assignment, give a brief account of how Singer’s argument works
and then propose an ethical argument of your own following a similar structure. For instance, you might
argue that animal suffering is a bad thing and that we should do everything we can to mitigate it. You
might even borrow an analogy from Singer and say “If an animal were needlessly suffering from a thorn,
for instance, and it were in our power to stop this suffering, it would be our moral obligation to do so as
long as helping the animal would not require us to sacrifice something of equal or greater moral
significance.” When summarizing Singer’s argument in the first section of your paper, do so by just
listing the premises. For example: “Premise 1: Harm, death, suffering, etc. are undesirable. Premise 2:
etc.” Formatted like this, it shouldn’t take more than around 100-200 words to sum up his main points.
Use the rest of the essay to make a similar argument of your own. Keep in mind that Singer starts off his
argument with a major assumption and you should feel free to do the same.