His theory does not negotiate neither on the argument based the reach to the need nor on the level of compromising ones’ luxury towards a social cause. Even though, Singer’s theory does not precisely define the level of sacrifice one should do to equate against ones social responsibility.
In the context of ‘The Truth about Fortune’, it is very easy to take a utilitarian support as the emphasis here is on the cause of the security of the society, no matter the methodology undertaken to achieve it. Breach of laws and regulations on torture of prisoners are justified here on the utilitarian grounds that this is at times the only solution towards the social cause. The cases as ‘the ticking bomb’ and the ‘slower-fuse high-level terrorist’ are left with no other option than to go on with extreme torture levels. However this theory also does not precisely define the level determining the need of taking the extreme steps.
However the second context is much easy to be pursued by a utilitarian as this practically does only affect him in the utility level and not in the implementation level. The surprise in the Singer’s theory thus well goes with his thesis.
Peter Singer is an Australian Philosopher who specializes in practical ethics, approaching ethical issues from a utilitarian perspective. His work ‘Famine, Affluence, and Morality’ was published in the revised edition of Philosophy and Public Affairs in 1972.
In this essay, the author through the perceptive of the Bengal famine in 1971 tries to evolve the theory that helping the ones in need is more the fellow human’s duty than a charity. Moral attitudes are to be shaped by the needs of the society and he reckons the need of people within the society who would observe the rules that make the social existence tolerable. As of his thesis, the moral point of view requires us to look beyond the