Ross says that the different moral duties

Using Nagel’s discussion of right and wrong, reflect on whether you think there are objective moral truths. According to Nagel, what is the strongest case for thinking that some actions are genuinely right or wrong independent of individual or cultural opinion? Why does he believe that morality cannot be reduced simply to personal preference or social convention? In your reflection, discuss a concrete moral issue (such as lying, punishment, helping others, or fairness) and explain how Nagel’s arguments would apply to it. Do his ideas support the claim that there is a correct moral answer in this case, or do they leave room for reasonable disagreement? Conclude by evaluating whether Nagel’s account of morality is convincing, and whether it helps explain how we can reason about moral questions rather than just express our attitudes.

Ross says that we sometimes act in favor of one moral duty over another because

Ross thinks that utilitarianism is just as good at explaining moral obligation as his deontological view.

Rose believes that whatever is optimific is

McGrath thinks that in order to solve the puzzle of moral deference we

McGrath claims that in order to do the right thing for the right reasons one needs more than to simply know that what one is doing is right.

Singer thinks that there are no serious reasons why someone might be hesitant to give to famine relief.

Singer thinks that we should give aid to others until the point that if we gave any more we would be causing as much suffering to ourselves as the suffering we are trying to alleviate.

Why does Singer think that there is a problem with the argument for the conclusion that our responsibility is diminished when there are more people who could help?