I was first introduced to Peter Singer’s idea of altruistic poverty at Governor’s School. It suggests that to achieve social and economic equality, individuals have to give away all they have until they reach the poverty line. While trying to wrap my mind around this questionable solution to such a complex issue, I realize that my previous way of thinking had been so egocentric. If I gave everything unnecessary for my survival what would my life look like? However, as this idea unveiled my own inadequacies as an altruistic individual, I began to wonder why capitalism does not encourage this altruism from all economic classes.…
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.…
The text explains that one is less interested in children in distant places. The text highlight the example of the child drowning in the pond to explain the contradiction of one’s moral reasoning. Like the dog, one feel responsible for one child not many children. One is best able to respond when dealing with a “single victim”. Thus, “mass suffering” would not get the attention it needs because there is too many people involved. That’s the reason why some people are not interesting in donating for poverty…
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)…
In Peter Singer’s 1972 post titled “Famine, Affluence and Morality”, he conveys that wealthy nations, for example the United States, has an ethical duty to contribute much a lot more than we do with regards to worldwide assistance for famine relief and/or other disasters or calamities which may happen. In this document, I will describe Singers objective in his work and give his argument with regards to this problem. I will describe 3 counter-arguments to Singer’s view which he tackles, and after that reveal Singer’s reactions to those counter-arguments. I will explain Singer’s idea of marginal utility and also differentiate how it pertains to his argument. I will compare how the ideas of duty and charity alter in his suggested world. To conclude, I will provide my own reaction about this problem supporting singer’s argument. Should wealthier nations have a moral duty to relieve poorer nations if a disastrous event were to happen? I think that we all must contribute in times of need even if this means substantially modifying the way in which we live for the objective of assisting other people so long as it doesn't cause us to suffer.…
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,…
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,…
It is an irrefutable fact that we should help each other. However sometimes help to others poses some danger to either us or others. In Peter Singer's essay "Famine Affluence, and Morality" Peter Singer argues that we ought, morally, to prevent starvation due to famine. Singer begins by saying that assistance has been inadequate as richer countries prioritize development above preventing starvation. Singer then states that "suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad" (404) and assumes that it is uncontroversial enough to be accepted without justification. He then next raises the linked premise that we morally ought to prevent something 'bad' from happening as long as we have the means and it does not entail compromising on anything of 'comparable moral significance', using the analogy of a drowning child and hence assuming the principle _of "_universalizability" (405). As Singer writes, he attempts to justify why he feels that it is within our means to do so without sacrificing anything morally significant, and concludes that we hence morally ought to prevent starvation due to famine.…
In Singer’s paper, he argues that we are all obligated to help children in poverty. He explains how we should donate the money that we use on unnecessary items. To back up his argument, he uses two examples. In the first example, Singer explains a scene from the Brazilian film Central Station. The scene involves a retired school teacher who delivers a 9 year old boy for $1000, which she uses to buy a new TV.…
In Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” he argues that when people abroad are suffering or dying from lack of food, shelter or medicine, it is wrong for people here to spend money on morally unimportant things rather than giving money to help (Hughes). This means that we have a moral obligation to do what we can to alleviate the stress of poverty abroad if it does not do any harm to us helping them. If we are able to benefit people abroad, we should do so. Food, shelter, and quality healthcare are things that should be seen as basic necessities; therefore, not only do we have a moral obligation to help those abroad in need, but we should also have the want to help those in need. Although Singer asserts this claim, he does identify…
In the article “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” by Peter Singer advocates for Americans to donate more to charities to help world poverty. That we are not giving enough. The issue we encounter is we do not see these poor kids in other countries at a personal level. They are just a picture on a website. Thus, we are not able to put ourselves in their shoes. Without that empathy connection, we will not see the need to give. Peter Singer believes Americans have plenty to give. That we should be donating one-fifth of our salaries to the charity organization. Yet, many of us don’t. All it would take to donate is a change our lifestyle spending habits. Only buying things we need to survive, and not purchasing items we can live without. Like, the new tv Dora wanted in his…
In the article, "Famine, Affluence, and Morality," by Peter Singer, he is addressing the subject of charity, morality in general, and giving us a different insight in the thoughts about famine relief. Singer points out some interesting things in his article. I do agree that people, espeically the rich, should do more than what most of them actually do. This paper will explain Singer 's goal, his counter arguments, his concept of marginal utility, and the ideas of charity and duty.…
Based on the article by Peter Singer entitled Famine, Affluence, and Morality, he attempts to move us to do more for charities and gives one astounding example. He uses starving children in Bengali and a drowning child.…
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…