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.…
In “The singer Solution to World Poverty” Singer talks about the American movement and its connection to world poverty world poverty. Where he claims that the only solution to world poverty would be by donating money to charity and gives he point out amount of dollars that could save a child’s life. He talks about how people should not spend money on luxuries while they are children dying in the world and he says that those luxuries shouldn’t be more valuable than people’s lives. In His essay he talk about the two examples of how people should save a child life tends not to do so.…
Have you ever thought that you are happier than many children in the world? On the other hand, they do not have enough good conditions to live and develop themselves, including poverty. How will they struggle for their lives with their small hands? They probably need our help to rescue them out of danger. “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, which is written by Peter Singer, is a solution to save children's lives. Singer persuades the reader to participate in helping children who lack food, get many diseases, and do not have good living conditions. His argument is that all of us should contribute to saving the children’s lives According to “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, this solution totally has the ability to be done by our help; however, I am not completely persuaded that I will help children by following Single’s solution.…
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…
Nobody can say that they wouldn’t help someone who is close to them; well I hope so otherwise I really need to rethink my faith in humanity; I wouldn’t go and say that every single person in the world would jump into a lake to save someone but they would try their hardest to save someone in trouble. But like the analogy that Singer uses in his essay we are more likely to give money to charities that are helping people in our own country rather than some random people halfway across the world. That’s probably because we can actually see the effect of our donations and the disasters that the people have to face. Guilt consumes us until we give into the pressures of donating, whereas if we see an ad for a charity that is helping people in third world countries we have less of an emotional connection to them because it has no effect on our lives. Peter Singer states “Moral attitudes are shaped by the needs of society, no doubt society needs people who will observe the rules that make social existence tolerable…It is quite inessential, however to, help people outside one’s own society”(Singer, pg. 469).…
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 article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” there are a few items that require further discussion. Peter Singer critiques our ordinary ways of thinking and in spite, very few people have accepted his conclusions. I will discuss Peter Singer’s goal and his presented argument in relation to this issue. In return, I will also mention the three counter-arguments to his position and the responses made by Singer. It is important to define Singer’s concept of marginal utility and to show the relation to his argument. We will need to compare how the ideas of duty and charity change in Singer’s proposed world. Finally, in conclusion my own personal response will be made to Singer’s argument either supporting his position, going against his position, or simply in the middle of his position. To begin one must truly understand the definition of an argument in the terms of philosophy. “For philosophers, then, the term "argument" doesn 't imply the idea it often does when we use the term to suggest anger, emotion, and hurt feelings. Rather, in this context, arguments simply present a conclusion and suggest why certain reasons indicate that conclusion is true, or probable” (Mosser K, 2010).…
In Peter Singer’s “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, Singer claims that the rich taste of people with money is starving children around the world. He also believes that if human beings have it to give, why don’t we give more to the people who have less. So, according to Singer, a possible solution to world poverty is for Americans to donate all extra income, which is not necessary for everyday living, to organizations that provide aid to other poor areas of the world. If more people donated their excess money to charitable agencies, that money could mean the difference between life and death for children in need, according to Singer.…
In Peter Singer's "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" Singer is describing to us in his story that everyone should give up their money to save a child's life. In that statement, its not completely fair that we have to give away our hard earned money to help out kids. Think of it as this, lets say he put one in this type of situation, what would one think about it? Yes, it does make sense that one should help out and lend some money to help the children out, but not all of the money we've worked hard for to get. Finally with all this, one does not agree with Singer's proposal, its not fair that we have to give away our hard earned money to help out kids lives.…
Across the United States, everyday lives would change dramatically if Peter Singer’s theory was set in place. He brings to the reader’s attention that there is a difference between duty and charity. This thought…
The Australian philosopher Peter Singer, who later this month begins teaching at Princeton University, is perhaps the world's most controversial ethicist. Many readers of his book "Animal Liberation" were moved to embrace vegetarianism, while others recoiled at Singer's attempt to place humans and animals on an even moral plane. Similarly, his argument that severely disabled infants should, in some cases, receive euthanasia has been praised as courageous by some — and denounced by others, including anti-abortion activists, who have protested Singer's Princeton appointment.…
In Peter Singer’s 1972 article Famine, Affluence, and Morality, he describes the dire situation that nine million refugees faced in East Bengal in 1971 and urges the wealthier, or affluent, nations to take immediate and long term moral actions to stop the spread of extreme global poverty. With this, he offers a philosophical approach to a new world where, instead of giving to charity, everyone living in these affluent nations ought to make it their duty to give anything of excess to those suffering across the globe and live at the marginal utility, which he would prefer. He also offers a less drastic option of moderate assistance wherein those who are able to assist ought to, as long as it does not create a similar moral dilemma. Critics argue that rewriting the moral scheme from charity to a concrete duty would be far too drastic and would unfairly condemn those who choose to “live the good life”; that too much effort would cause us to become less effective; and finally, that if everyone were in similar positions, then an equal amount would be given by all, but the result would actually be less than if some gave everything they had while others gave nothing.…
In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” Peter Singer argues the importance of giving to those in need, especially as those of us in affluent nations have an overabundance of resources. In this paper, I will exposit Singer’s argument and explain the methods and points that he makes. Specially, I will show that through his assumptions and implications, as well as how he refutes counter arguments…
Giving your money to the poor or to charity organizations may sound easy enough, but in practice it is basically impossible. Peter Singer, in his recent NY Times article, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” argues that the rich should donate whatever luxuries and whatever money they don’t’ need all to the less prosperous. Many would argue both for and against such a viewpoint, and such a “solution” would require evaluation of its pros and cons before application.…
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.…