Philosophy 77 (4):503-517 (2002)
|Abstract||In an influential paper, Peter Singer claims that affluent people have a strong obligation to relieve famine. If they fail, they allow others to die, and makes them murderers. In responding to this outrageous claim, which has given uneasy conscience to many, I show that Singer is engaged in indefensible moralizing that substitutes bullying for reasoned argument and gives a bad name to morality.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Martin Peterson (2004). Foreign Aid and the Moral Value of Freedom. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 7 (3):293-307.
R. P. Duncan-Jones (1990). Famine and Food Supply Peter Garnsey: Famine and Food-Supply in the Graeco-Roman World: Responses to Risk and Crisis. Pp. Xx + 303; 2 Figs; 8 Tables; 2 Maps. Cambridge University Press, 1988. £25. [REVIEW] The Classical Review 40 (01):103-106.
Keith Horton (2004). Famine and Fanaticism: A Response to Kekes. Philosophy 79 (2):319-327.
Paul B. Thompson (2010). Food Aid and the Famine Relief Argument (Brief Return). Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 23 (3).
Keith Dromm (2006). “Based on True Events”. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 20 (2):263-276.
Stuart Rennie (2011). Viewing Research Participation as a Moral Obligation: In Whose Interests? Hastings Center Report 41 (2).
Dean M. Braa (1997). The Great Potato Famine and the Transformation of Irish Peasant Society. Science and Society 61 (2):193 - 215.
G. Alexandre Lenferna, Singer Revisited: Cosmopolitanism, Global Poverty and Our Ethical Requirements.
Engel (2004). Taking Hunger Seriously. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 4 (1):29-57.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads294 ( #465 of 549,065 )
Recent downloads (6 months)21 ( #2,591 of 549,065 )
How can I increase my downloads?