Ethics According to Peter Singer, Movie Review Example

Peter Singer in the film ‘Examined Life’ speaks about ethics. In his first premise, Singer observes that it is wrong for people to die from lack of shelter, medical care, and food while some people are spending hefty amounts on luxurious items. People should be conscious on their spending, because they can make a difference in a life of a suffering soul. In the second premise, the philosopher argues that, if people are in a position of preventing something unpleasant to happen, without jeopardizing their morals, then they had better do it. Thirdly, singer asserts that, something bad should not happen without our indulgence, if at all, the moral importance remains intact. In his conclusion, singer urges people to help in liberating others from death and suffering.

In view of the position taken by Singer, some premises appear problematic, while others, although very few, are controversial. In the first premise, it is wrong for people to allow others to succumb to hunger and lack of medical care while others are leading luxurious life. In the second premise, the philosopher supports it using his experiment pond thought. It asserts that, if a person is walking along a shallow pond and notices a child is drowning, the best action to take is to get in to the pool and help the child. Consequently, the child will get mud but that is irrelevant considering the life of the child is at stake. In view of this experiment, the person refusing to save the child lacks ethics and is a moral monster. According to singer, people can send money to save the lives of people dying, distance notwithstanding. In the film, the argument by Singer is valuable since he observes that people can use agencies such as UN and other NGOs that have effective frameworks of disbursing charity.

The arguments put forward by Singer appears extremely valuable because it is morally wrong for some people to wear designer clothes and drive expensive machines, while others are dying of hunger. Arguably, people ought to make sacrifices and offer help to the needy. In supporting this argument, just as Singer observes, most people in developed nations are well placed to offer help to people with problems. As such, the conclusion by Singer is valid and undisputable. In the same vein, giving money towards charity of assisting the less fortunate should not be seen as a privilege but it is a duty. People should do more than they are already doing, and ensure that a portion of their income and luxurious meals goes towards assisting the poor. People should share some of their clothes and shoes to those without; they should make avoid eating out every time. Through this form of sacrifice, the suffering across many parts of the world would be alleviated.

Conclusively, the assertions on ethics as highlighted by Singer are valuable and can help a great deal if taken with the seriousness deserved. As seen, Singer does not just urge people to be morally conscious without playing his part. He is committed towards donating, through giving 25% of his income towards charity. He urges people to continue giving a percentage of their income towards helping the poor. Even so, it does not mean that people should give and forget themselves in the process. People should be committed to their responsibilities, and avoid giving to please the society.