Peter Singer is the author to the “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” article. Singer 's essay argues that there is basically no reason why Americans should not be donating their extra money to those in need. Singer addresses the urgency to donate by appealing to the reader 's sense of ethos, pathos, and logos.…
To give or not to give? This is the central question brought up in “The Singer Solution To World Poverty,” an article written by utilitarian philosopher, Peter Singer. Singer’s “solution” is that Americans need to take all of their money that is not devoted to the basic requirements for life and give it to organizations that are working on saving impoverished children across the globe. In his piece, he uses two imaginary situations to draw a conclusion about the moral position of Americans who do not donate their surplus money to save the poor. In the first, a woman nearly trades a boy’s life for a material possession, and in the second, a man allows a child to be hit by a train in order to save his car. Singer compares these two concocted characters to the unwilling, selfish Americans. He uses these horrific situations to influence his audience’s emotions and make them feel guilty for not donating their extra money; Singer’s accusations make his audience question their ethics and morals by equating them to child murderers. He even goes as far as to say that in order to live a “morally decent” life, we…
Peter Singer brings to light a very important global problem, poverty, and offers an extreme solution to solve this problem. Peter Singer argues that the solution to world poverty is living simply and giving all excess household money to charities. Singer uses effective examples to get his point across, but gives an unreasonable solution. He gives the example that the failure to donate money will directly result in the death of children in need. "Whatever money you're spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away." (Singer)…
References: Flynn, S.V., & Black, L. L. (2011) An Emergent Theory of Altruism and Self-Interest. Journal…
In his article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer outlines his argument for helping those in need in the global community. His main argument is that humans can stop suffering based on our moral decisions.1 Singer calls for the definition of ‘charity’ in our society to have moral implications. People should give governmental and privately. all need to give to charity and all at the same time.…
He feels that have a moral obligation to help people who are suffering no matter how far away from us they are. Singer feels that the rich and the affluence have a predetermined obligation to help the poor and needy, because they already have so much. He also argues that human’s persecute of luxury over the idea of evenly distributing the basic necessities of life for everyone is just plain wrong. He defends this argument when he states, “A person who has a super abundance has obligation to the poor”. (Singer,…
The issue of moral obligations towards the global poor has always been a contentious affair to be discussed for fear of problematic resolutions that may affect academia on a personal level. Peter Singer, most notable for his authorship of “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” and the drowning child analogy, presents the rather uncommon normative view that affluent persons are morally obligated to donate more resources to humanitarian causes than the present standard. Singer’s perspective on these seemingly radical moral ideals are confronted by many a pragmatic objection, ranging from entitlement principles to moral inequalities. Nevertheless, Singer builds his argumentative framework in regards to moral obligations to the global poor on solid…
In “ Helping and hating the Homeless”, the author Peter Mann explain that the word homeless is now applied to most people with so many histories and problems. First of all, there are a lot of reasons that explain why they became homeless but most people categorized all of the reason into one. Some homeless people start their normal life by living on the street, sometimes they make drivers crazy because they are always hanging out on the street. For some experiences that they couldn’t escape from, and join the society.…
For those who frightened much to abandon their life, goals, projects and interests in order to save one’s life, say goodbye to righteousness. In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, also in “ the life you can save”, Peter Singer tries to show that we human beings have a moral obligation to give far more than we actually do for excessive and tragic situations such as famine and disaster relief. According to singer, Giving, sharing and helping the needy is more than moral happiness and inner satisfaction, it is a moral duty. As he state his argument in three premises, “1, suffering and death from the lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad, (2), if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening,…
Egoism is the act of behaving self-interestedly, and is perceived as a negative trait even though it can be seen as a tool of survival (Rosenstand, 2003: 131). However, there is an opposing theory, which is altruism. Altruism is defined as a concern for the welfare of others and is considered virtuous (Rosenstand, 2003: 150). We are often made aware of heroes who risk their lives for others and these heroes inspire many. We are encouraged to be altruistic, early in our lives. Nonetheless, one notices how altruist acts usually include rewards, even if it’s just a simple thank you. This leads to questions such as, does true altruism exist, or do people always have a motive as to why they perform altruistically?…
I agree with the comment that Peter Singer’s argument that individuals should donate to alleviate poverty and save lives does not address the underlying structural socioeconomic causes of poverty. His argument for a redistribution of wealth on an individual basis still operates under an economic system where there is an unequal distribution of wealth. As a result, even if individuals donate money, poorer countries will always be reliant on these wealthier countries and individuals for survival resulting in an increased power imbalance. However, I also think that it is important not to disregard these contributions to people in poverty simply because they do not fix the system, as these contributions do have the power to save and improve lives…
There have been a lot of changes in the past 2 decades globally. On the verge of the globalization many, economic activities have shifted from West to East. Countries like India and China where most of the Investors relocated have played a major role in keeping the average prices on goods at a low level. Businesses that follow the ideology of profit maximization put negative effects on overall well-being of society. Recession of 2008 that was created from burst of housing bubble which put more people in poverty, with loss of jobs, and shelter that was no longer available to them. This created in many countries high level of poverty and high number of unemployment as well. In such business model only few benefit and many suffer. The New York Time magazine in its September 5, 1999 issue published an article "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" by Peter Singer. The article outlined a plan addressing global poverty problems. Mr. Singer, who is a moral philosopher and a professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, proposed a solution that every American should donate money to charities like UNICEF or Oxfam America, organizations that work to help poverty stricken populations. The author is convincing American people not to spent money on not so essential items in everyday life. His solution to world’s poverty is to have developed nations save more money in order to donate to the less fortunate. I find Singer's idea fascinating, but I do not believe it will succeed in today's world.…
The Author Peter Singer mentioned a very important thing in “What Should a Billionaire Give and What should you?” that “in our world today some lives are seen as worth saving and others are not”. That made me think what kind of horrible world do we live in? The author brought up Warren Buffet, and Bill Gates a lot due to their generous amount of money they have donated to many different charities. As a matter of fact, Bill Gates came across the statistic that half of million children day every year from rotavirus. The billionaire was shocked that he didn’t know such a disease existed, let alone killing half a million children in developing countries. Furthermore the disturbed billionaire wondered why governments weren’t doing everything in…
We are all murders. We spend our money on lavish items we don’t really need. Have you ever bought an item for your own self enjoyment: concert tickets, iPhones, Jordans, Pizza ? If you answered “yes” to any of the above, then Peter Singer, utilitarian moral philosopher, would equate your actions to letting “a runaway train hurtle towards an unsuspecting child” (Singer 4). Though the prospect of not donating our extra funds to charities sounds selfish and egocentric. We are not monsters. In a sense, Singer is correct. Currently, every person who lives in an affluent country has the ability to donate to charity. Yet, everyone has their own problems and issues. It is unjust to hold everyone to such high moral standards: failing to donate money…
In "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" Peter Singer argues that affluent individuals, in fact, almost all of us are living deeply immoral lives by not contributing to the relief and prevention of famine. The causes of famine are various and include human wrongdoing, but this doesn't matter, according to Singer. What matters is that each of us can minimize the effects of the famines that are now occurring and can take steps to prevent those that might occur. As we go about our daily business, living our comfortable lives, millions of people, including hundreds of thousands of children throughout the world, are suffering and dying. Singer believes, however, that it is a moral obligation to relieve famine. He says, "At the individual level, people have, with very few exceptions, not responded to the situation in any significant way. Generally speaking, people have not given large sums to relief funds; they have not written to their parliamentary representatives demanding increased government assistance; they have not demonstrated the streets, held symbolic fasts, or done anything else directed toward providing the refugees with the means to satisfy their essential needs" (789). Singer thinks that we, as a society, have done little to help those in need and could actually contribute more.…