https://padlet.com/s1117524/g85nf3fxpgp3 1. Why does Singer think we ought to help the starving needy in poor countries? What is his argument? Singer 為甚麼認為我們應該幫助貧窮國家的饑民? 他的論證是甚麼? 2. Do you agree with Singer? On your view, how far should people in the affluent countries sacrifice to help the starving needy in poor countries? 請問你是否認同Singer 的看法? 你覺得在富裕地區生活的人, 有多大的道德責任幫助貧窮國家的饑民? (要幫到甚麼程度才會合理?) 3. From the utilitarian point of view, is it always immoral for us to buy new clothes or to eat at expensive restaurant? 從效益主義者的角度來說, 購買新的衣服, 或在高級餐廳吃飯是否恆常屬於不道德的行為? en-us 2016-09-20 09:41:12 UTC 2026-01-08 01:58:44 UTC hello@padlet.com s1117524 https://padlet.com/s1117524/g85nf3fxpgp3/wish/132925803 1. singer think that enduring brought on by an absence of the most fundamental of assets is terrible, he think that if we have the ability to help those people, it will be our duty to do so. the example is that in the event that we are strolling past a lake and see a kid suffocating in it, we should swim in and haul the kid out. This may destroy our clothes however that would be inconsequential contrast with the demise of the kid.
2. I agree with singer, I think that in the affluent countries, people are much more rich than the straving needy in the poor countries, therefore, the people in the affluent countries are having the duty to help those people who are straving, the people who are rich can donate some money or food to those poor countries, but of course not affecting their own life.
3. Getting a charge out of moderately extravagant diversion is not moral from the utilitarian point of view. buying new clothes or dinning at costly eatery are cases which individuals do to advance their personal satisfaction. Notwithstanding, if the cash is spent to spare the penniless, it can expand the survival rate.]]> 2016-10-25 07:57:39 UTC https://padlet.com/s1117524/g85nf3fxpgp3/wish/132925803 s1116150 https://padlet.com/s1117524/g85nf3fxpgp3/wish/132931331 1. Singer think that it is morally obligated to donate far more resources to humanitarian causes than is considered normal. ]]> 2016-10-25 08:38:56 UTC https://padlet.com/s1117524/g85nf3fxpgp3/wish/132931331 s1117607 https://padlet.com/s1117524/g85nf3fxpgp3/wish/133110731 1. Singer suggests that we ought to help others or use our power to prevent bad things happen. Based on this concept, singer thinks that it is unnecessary for us to buy new clothes. He thinks that we should keep on wearing old clothes and give those money to the poor. By doing so, we would be preventing another person from starving.

2. I don't agree with Singer. We can help the poor form the sense of goodwill but not under pressure. It's not the responsibility of people who in affluent countries sacrifice to help the starving needy in poor countries. Moreover, what we can do is too little for saving the poor. Giving financial support to the poor is just a short term solution. I am not saying we should do nothing to help with the starving needy in poor countries but it should not consider as a responsibility or duty.

3. It is not immoral for us to purchase new goods or eat at expensive restaurant from the utilitarian point of view. Purchasing is an action of increasing our living standard and also advancing personal satisfaction. Moreover, the utilitarian suggest to have total happiness, so it is moral to  buy new clothes or to eat at expensive restaurant.

]]> 2016-10-25 17:40:51 UTC https://padlet.com/s1117524/g85nf3fxpgp3/wish/133110731