One person’s right to life doesn’t guarantee his right to something than doesn’t belong to him. It is your kindness if you don’t unplug from the violinist, not something you owe him. Right to life consist not in the right not to be killed, but rather in the right not to be killed unjustly.
Being responsible for the presence of the fetus doesn’t implies that the mother gives the right to her body to the fetus or anyone else. Burglar’s case. Thus performing an abortion is not unjust killing.
If the pregnancy lasts only one hour or a person can be saved easily, we ought to save a person’s life. But “ought to” doesn’t imply the right to something. If you refuse, you are mean, but not unjust.
2. Why does singer think that giving to charity is not supereogatoey? What view of charity does singer take? What is the argument? Be sure to say what's supererogation http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1972----.htm the supererogation is that the performance of more than asked for, the action of doing something beyond one’s duty. singer believes that most people give money to charity to make themselves feel better, it is not charity, but the money given to buy the “feeling good”. when people are living in luxury and spending extra money for just well-dressed than keeping from cold, they ought to give money to those people who are suffering from coldness and starvation.
Argument is , it is very bad that people suffer, if it is in our power to prevent the suffering happen without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we are morally obligated to do so, therefore, we are all morally obligated to do it.
My next point is this: if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable(可比较的) moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.
Distance and number of people: this can make no real difference to our moral obligations It follows from what I have said earlier that we ought to give money away, rather than spend it on clothes which we do not need to keep us warm. To do so is not charitable, or generous(慷慨的). Nor is it the kind of act which philosophers(哲学家) and theologians(神学者) have called "supererogatory(额外的)" - an act which it would be good to do, but not wrong not to do. On the contrary, we ought to give the money away, and it is wrong not to do so.
I am not maintaining that there are no acts which are charitable, or that there are no acts which it would be good to do but not wrong not to do.
One objection to the position I have taken might be simply that it is too drastic(激烈的) a revision of our moral scheme. From the moral point of view, the prevention of the starvation of millions of people outside our society must be considered at least as pressing as the upholding of property norms within our society.
3. How does phaedrus answer the following questions? What does love do for us? Why is it valuable? What are the signs and symptoms of love? love makes people more courageous, and it inspires virtues and inhibits shameful acts.
Love is the origin of all the greatest benefits of human being. It gives us the ability to feel shamed at disgraceful behavior and pride in graceful behavior. One would be particularly ashamed at being caught behaving badly by one’s lovers. It inspires the virtues and inhibits shameful acts. It helps people attain goodness and happiness.
4. How does Pausanias answer the following questions: is love ever bad? What kind of love is bad?
Pausanias makes distinction between good love and bad love, the bad love is the love of sexuality, and it is the love for the beauty only, the good love is the love that overcomes the beauty, it is the love that reaches into soul.
Common love-bad love: bodies rather than minds of their