Peter Singer provides an argument by analogy by using Bob and his precious Bugatti. This argument by analogy starts when Bob decides to park on the railroad tracks and gets out of his car. Bob, then notices a boy playing in the distance on the other side of the tracks. Suddenly, Bob notices a train headed straight for the child on the tracks. Bob has the opportunity to save the child’s life by pulling the lever that would send the train down the other side of the tracks leading to his precious Bugatti. Instead of destroying his Bugatti, Bob decided not to pull the lever and let the train kill the child just because he wanted to save his precious Bugatti from being destroyed. The big question being asked here is, “Was morally right or wrong …show more content…
I agree that Bob was at fault here in his decision to save his Bugatti because the life of a human was a stake here. If it was his pet dog or something else non-human then yeah I believe it would have been okay to let the train continue to go. The life of a human is just way too precious to lose. A material object such as a Bugatti is just an object that will be old in about five years down the road, Bob will probably want to go buy another one to replace it. Once somebody finally get something they want they will probably end up wanting something better a few years down the road after they get tired of using the object that they cared so much for in the past. Bob was a selfish person and loved his self too much and his belonging. The world would be such a better place if people like Bob were taking out of it. Selfish people make the world a harder place to live because they live for the interest of themselves and not for the interest of others. They only care for their lives and their feelings instead of the lives and feelings of other people. Bob made a bad choice, and maybe in the long run his conscience will make him feel guilty and if he is stuck in that situation again he will make the moral choice this