Is it fair that the interest of one country ruins the quality of lives in an other? When do we start considering the well being of another country above our own? When should we be held responsible for our actions? According to Peter Singer the world today has started to move away from independent nations and into a global community, where questions like these need to be considered. He uses arguments that show how close knit the world has become and how even the actions of the smallest group of peoples could affect the world.
One major ethical questions that Singer brings up is whether the value of humans are equal or is it determined by the nation that human belongs to? I would hope that we would all say that the value of a person is inherent and can not change based on what nation a person belongs to.
United States
United States
A portrait of Karl Marx.The united states, for example, was founded on the bases of equal representation and the Constitution emphasizes that all men are created equal as well as have certain unalienable rights. Although at the start this ideal only extended to the white male population, eventually the ideal of equality started to evolve and extended its reaches to all races and genders. If the founders of the U.S. did not believe in an inherent value of people then we may not have the U.S. we have to day. It seem that it is even unconstitutional to disbelieve in an inherent human value. If we believe this to be true then we have to take into account the consequences of our actions and the effects they have on people of other nations. Unfortunately, we do not as a nation take seriously the consequences of our actions even if it will harm the welfare...