Try to attempt to take the conversation further by examining their claims or arguments in more depth or responding to the posts that they make to you. Keep the discussion on target and try to analyze things in as much detail as you can. This discussion response should be 100 words or more.
The red cross is a world health organization that provides medical supplies to countries with a shortage either due to a natural disaster, poverty, or violent conflict. This organization being able to stop the suffering of the needy has provided “good” throughout the world for several decades. It significantly diminishes suffering and fatalities from illness, and infection regardless of geographic location or human characteristic. Mill describes “good” as pleasure. It can be identified and measured but it is surely not consistent throughout time, people, and places. Mill’s “good” are pleasures largely defined by what is most desirable. Not just the absence of pain, but the quality of the pleasure being experienced according to the general consensus. Singer focuses on the definition of “the good” being a base line for equal treatment. “The good” is simply happiness, and happiness represents the absence of negative attributes instead of the presence of pleasures. If no good can be identified from an action a utilitarian would label that action as neutral and unnecessary. This approach can cause problems with the way the neutrality is calculated, and is the major concept for those who appose utilitarian beliefs. For example one very small bad aspect to an action would outweigh a potential very very good outcome. By measuring this in simple numbers the calculation is illogical. The same could be said for measuring how great “the good” would be versus how bad “the bad” would be, because we all have a different perception of these attributes.