To edit an already written paper. grade and notes from professor will be provided to edit and add missing context.
Here are the instructions for the assignments. on the following:
In this paper you will be summarizing and explaining Peter Singer’s argument that we should donate all the money we would normally spend on luxuries to charities that provide life-saving aid for children in need. For your paper: 1. First, begin by stating what Singer ultimately concludes is morally impermissible and what is morally obligatory. 2. Next, describe the trolley problem that Singer invokes in his argument, and explain why it is central to Singer’s argument. Why think that the trolley problem is not merely a metaphor, but an accurate representation of the choices we actually make all the time? Describe a realistic trolley problem – one without Bugattis, X-Boxes, or toddlers on railroads – that instead uses only possibilities from the everyday happenings of American life. 3. When Singer calls himself a “utilitarian,” this term is synonymous with the term “consequentialism.” Read the first section of this article 1000wordphilosophy.com/2014/05/15/introduction-to-consequentialism/, and then explain what Peter Singer means when he calls himself a utilitarian in your own words. Identify what plausible assumption Singer makes about the value of a luxury purchase for yourself relative to food and medicine for a child in need and explain how this assumption is fundamental to his argument. 4. Then, describe two objections to his argument that Singer discusses in his essay, and explain what his response is to each. 5. Although he himself does not explicitly identify what would be supererogatory on his view, identify the kind of act that you think Singer would most likely say is supererogatory and explain why you think this is