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. Contrary to Singer’s position‚ many Americans
Premium Third World First World
Unrealistic and challenging solution of Peter Singer Can you imagine that if you do not donate to charity‚ people treat you as a murderer? Peter Albert David Singer is an Australian moral philosopher‚ professor at Princeton University and utilitarian‚ who fights against poverty. There is a side of society that often goes unseen by the middle and upper classes—a side ridden with poverty and misfortune. In “The Singer Solution to World Poverty‚” Singer calls on the prosperous to provide
Premium Ethics Poverty Charitable organization
in poverty stricken countries‚ people and children are living in destitution. Many of these people lack a basic human need which commonly includes nutrition‚ healthcare‚ education‚ clothing‚ shelter‚ and clean water. Peter Singer‚ author of ’The Singer Solution to World Poverty’‚ suggests that all Americans that are financially stable to donate should be donating all their non-essential money to the needy people across the globe. This seems like the morally right thing to do‚ however Singers argument
Premium Poverty Poverty in the United States Human
Peter Singer- Famine‚ Affluence‚ and Morality Pamela Buitimea PHI 208 April 1‚ 2013 Instructor Galen Johnson Peter Singer- Famine‚ Affluence‚ and Morality Who is Peter Singer? Peter Singer was a man with many beliefs and thoughts about what he feels and what he thinks things ought to be. The argument "Famine‚ Affluence‚ and Morality" by Peter Singer suggests that “the agent which is praiseworthy for giving to charity but not blameworthy for not giving to charity is wrong‚ and the agent which
Premium
Adam Erickson Singer’s Sticky Situation Peter Singer thinks we are too selfish with our money. In “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”‚ he proposes a solution to poverty in other countries. Singer believes that money that might otherwise be used for luxury goods should be donated to charities that help save lives in poorer countries. He believes that this decision increase overall happiness more than the purchase of a luxury good‚ like new shoes‚ would. While Singer’s argument raises an
Premium Ethics Poverty Morality
Peter Albert David Singer is an Australian moral philosopher who was born in 1946‚ one of his main goals is to end world poverty by donating to charities and convincing others to do the same‚ and he believes that affluent people should donate all disposable income to charity. Nel Noddings is an American philosopher born in 1929‚ and her view on ethics focuses on a natural sense of caring and a flexibility of principles‚ she rejects Singer’s argument saying that we have obligations to those around
Premium Ethics Morality Poverty
Arguments of Peter Singer PHI200: Mind and Machine Instructor: April 19‚ 2013 Singer’s goal in the article “Famine‚ Affluence and Morality” is to get people to think differently about famine relief‚ charity‚ and morality. These are key issues that people need to be more aware of and act on them. People who are financially stable and well off should take more of an active role by giving more. They should feel obligated in helping those in need. There are many people suffering severely‚
Premium Poverty Wealth
Peter Singer asserts that utilitarianism implies a moral obligation to be a vegetarian. Utilitarianism holds that the right actions‚ or what we ought to do‚ are those actions that are expected to produce the best overall consequences‚ provide maximum utility‚ happiness or pleasure and minimize pain and suffering. Utilitarians look at the probable consequences of choices and choose their actions based on whatever they believe will produce the most utility or pleasure. Singer claims that if one is
Premium Utilitarianism Ethics Hedonism
1. In this paper I will argue that Singer is wrong to claim that human suffering and animal suffering should be given equal consideration. He claims that human animals and non-human animals with vertebrae experience pain and suffering in the same way. (41) 2. In “Animal Liberation”‚ Peter Singer argues that human suffering and animal suffering should be given equal consideration. He believes that a lot of our modern practices are speciesist‚ and that they hold our best interest above all else. The
Premium Suffering Mammal Animal rights
that money? According to Peter Singer‚ you don’t really have any choice because you’re “morally obligated” to donate far more resources to famine relief and similar causes than what you currently think is enough‚ but without sacrificing anything of equivalent moral importance. In this paper I will analyze this argument and try to show that Singer’s conclusions are correct‚ yet they are not quite as correct as he believes they are. To do so‚ I will try to show that Singer is wrong to think that we
Premium Poverty Ethics Wealth