The average American spends their excess wealth on vacations, fancy dinners, new clothes, and other unnecessary desires, completely disregarding impoverished children in other parts of the world. In an accusatory article published in the New York Times Magazine, utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer condemns the actions of financially secure Americans’ as immoral. By incorporating pathos into his analogies and factual evidence, Singer argues that Americans have the moral responsibility to donate their excess money to help children overseas, ultimately causing the audience to make the choice between a child’s life and personal luxuries. The argument is introduced by an anecdote from the film, Central Station, where Dora sacrifices $1000 and …show more content…
He provides factual evidence from Peter Unger that states that just $200 in donations can ensure a child’s survival, which extends his argument by leading to a position in which choosing anything other than using excess money to save a child would characterize one’s actions as immoral. Singer openly weighs the value of the spending of $200 on dinner against saving a child, forcing the readers to agree with his claim because choosing any alternative to saving the child would be wrong. By comparing the value of the $200 used for a child versus dinner at a restaurant, Singer continues to emotionally appeal to his audience by inducing reflection and guilt for not helping overseas children. Additionally, it can be expected that the readers of the New York Times Magazine are those who are considered wealthy enough to donate their restaurant funds to overseas charities, thus directly targeting the emotions of those who have been previously turning their back on the needy children. Supporting his claim with this monetary evidence from Peter Unger, a New York University philosopher, also adds credibility to his belief, since the reader sees that his call to donate is shared by
The article “Luxury Shame,” written by Johnnie Roberts describes how and why the rich are scaling back on their extravagant expenditures. Initially, I was annoyed and shocked at how the very rich were assimilating their unfamiliar experiences of “recessionary times,” with those that experienced the emotions of poverty. Roberts explains the ostentatious life of multimillionaire Michael Hirtenstein, who would routinely and openly show off his profitable real estate collection. After the economy took a turbulent downfall, Hirstenstein and other wealthy Americans began to feel the shame or embarrassment of flaunting their wealth. Despite the “halt” to the economy, Hirstenstein became frugal with his money, even though he could have easily bought whatever he wanted.
Chris McCandless, throughout his journey across the country, performed numerous acts which are divergent from the rest of society. For example, he burned $123 in order to show that material things are of no real significance to his life (Krakauer 29). Furthermore, Chris points out in a letter to 81-year-old friend, Ronald Franz, “So many people live within unhappy circumstances and yet will not take the i...
A penny saved may be a penny earned, just as a penny spent may begin to better the world. Andrew Carnegie, a man known for his wealth, certainly knew the value of a dollar. His successful business ventures in the railroad industry, steel business, and in communications earned him his multimillion-dollar fortune. Much the opposite of greedy, Carnegie made sure he had what he needed to live a comfortable life, and put what remained of his fortune toward assistance for the general public and the betterment of their communities. He stressed the idea that generosity is superior to arrogance. Carnegie believes that for the wealthy to be generous to their community, rather than live an ostentatious lifestyle proves that they are truly rich in wealth and in heart. He also emphasized that money is most powerful in the hands of the earner, and not anyone else. In his retirement, Carnegie not only spent a great deal of time enriching his life by giving back; but also often wrote about business, money, and his stance on the importance of world peace. His essay “Wealth” presents what he believes are three common ways in which the wealthy typically distribute their money throughout their life and after death. Throughout his essay “Wealth”, Andrew Carnegie appeals to logos as he defines “rich” as having a great deal of wealth not only in materialistic terms, but also in leading an active philanthropic lifestyle. He solidifies this definition in his appeals to ethos and pathos with an emphasis on the rewards of philanthropy to the mind and body.
In Peter Singer’s “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” an article in The Allyn & Bacon Guide to Writing. Peter Singer debates the only method to solving world poverty is simply the money that is being spent on necessities, such as luxuries, should be donated to charity.If this is not done, the question of morality and virtue is put in place. Singer’s article begins by referring to a Brazilian movie Central Stadium, the film is centered on Dora, a retired schoolteacher, who delivers a homeless nine-year-old-boy to an address where he would supposedly be adopted. In return she would be given thousands of dollars, thus spending some of it on a television set. Singer then poses an ethical question, asking what the distinction is “between a Brazilian who sells a homeless child to organ peddlers and an American who already has a TV and upgrades to a better one, knowing that the money could be donated to an organization that would use it to save the lives of kids in need?”(545). Singer mentions the book Living High and Letting Die, by the New York University philosopher Peter Unger, discussing a peculiar scenario. Bob, the focus of the story is close to retirement and he has used the majority of his savings to invest on a Bugatti. The point of this story is to demonstrate how Bob chose to retrieve his car rather than save ...
In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer is trying to argue that “the way people in relatively affluent countries react to a situation… cannot be justified; indeed,… our moral conceptual scheme needs to be altered and with it, the way of life that has come to be taken for granted in our society”(Singer 230). Peter Singer provides striking examples to show the reader how realistic his arguments are. In this paper, I will briefly give a summary of Peter Singer’s argument and the assumptions that follow, adding personal opinions for or against Peter’s statements. I hope that within this paper, I am able to be clearly show you my thoughts in regards to Singer.
In The Cause Against Helping the Poor, Garrett Hardin argues that each nation must protect their own resources and leave others to fend for themselves. Perhaps the strongest argument that Hardin gives for this claim relies on the belief that helping the poor will only ruin our environment and hurt the future generation. Furthermore, we are justified in protecting ourselves, which makes no moral difference in protecting those who are closer to us. In this paper, I will argue that we have a general obligation to help those in need, but the obligation is stronger for those closest to us.
In the article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer argues that our conceptions on moral belief need to change. Specifically, He argues that giving to famine relief is not optional but a moral duty and failing to contribute money is immoral. As Singer puts it, “The way people in affluent countries react ... cannot be justified; indeed the whole way we look at moral issues-our moral conceptual scheme-needs to be altered and with it, the way of life that has come to be taken for granted in our society”(135). In other words Singer believes that unless you can find something wrong with the following argument you will have to drastically change your lifestyle and how you spend your money. Although some people might believe that his conclusion is too radical, Singer insists that it is the logical result of his argument. In sum, his view is that all affluent people should give much more to famine relief.
He says this because not all people contribute, so the ones who do will need to give more than they need to. Moreover, Singer does not take into consideration that people work really hard to fulfill their wants—which includes spending on luxuries. If donating money is not considered good, but obligatory; and people were asked to donate most of their extra income to the impoverished, they would stop working so hard to earn money. They would not work over time or even full-time, and just earn enough to fulfill their needs. Even if donating might have more moral significance than buying lavish things, it might not be worth all the time and effort for people. This might also hurt the economy of the
A large part of this problem is that many Americans buy into the ploys of capitalism, sacrificing happiness for material gain. “Americans have voluntarily created, and voluntarily maintained, a society which increasingly frustrates and aggravates” them (8). Society’s uncontrolled development results in an artificial sense of scarcity which ensures “a steady flow of output” (78).
Throughout Saunders’ stories: “ Pastoralia”, "Brad Carrigan, American”, “Jon”, and "In Persuasion Nation"; are themes of violence, dependence, and fate. With these themes Saunders is relaying how money and power are reflected in everyone unconscious mindset: from the higher ups to the “people at the bottom of the heap”. Saunders points out that with that type of mindset is how America is declining not just economically, but as people of morals. We may be trying to “keep positive/think positive” but maybe money is the reason why we’re sinking so low into idleness, impatience, selfishness, and whatnot (Saunders).
Saint Augustine once said, “Find out how much God has given you and from it take what you need; the remainder is needed by others.” (Augustine). Augustine's belief that it is the duty of the individual to assist those less fortunate than themselves is expressed in the essay "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" by Peter Singer. Singer shares his conviction that those living in luxury should support those struggling to survive in poverty. Singer adopts the persona of a sage utilitarian philosopher who judges the morality of actions based on the consequences that are wrought by them. Singer utilizes powerful pathos, rhetorical questions, ethos, and a bold tone which contributes to his purpose of persuading his intended audience of American consumers to live only on necessity rather than luxury as well as to donate their discretionary income to the impoverished.
The poem “America” by Tony Hoagland reflects on how peoples’ minds are clouded by small-scale items, money, and the unimportance of those items. Metaphors and imagery are utilized to emphasize the unimportance of materialistic items in America. How America is being flooded with unnecessary goods. The poem uses examples of people to create an example and connection to the overall meaning.
Singer’s approach to philanthropy addresses the disparity between the wealth and poor as created by industrialization, a growth in civilization. However, his approach slows future growth in civilization. Carnegie’s massive fortunes and his workers’ relative poverty are a testament of the effects of industrialization and his philosophy aimed to bring those from poverty into wealth. However, he failed to address some fundamental needs that the poor have in his approach to philanthropy. Growth in civilization initially led to industrialization and the creation of the extreme disparities of wealth addressed in Carnegie and Singer’s philosophies on philanthropy. As civilization continues to progress and technology automates more fields of labor, the disparities of wealth will continue to grow. A better and more universally accepted approach to philanthropy is critical to the future welfare of the human
Singer’s argument may have swayed many people to donate their dispensable income to children in need despite the fact that it has many fundamental flaws. He argues that we should give away the majority of our earnings to charity. Since Singer wants the reader to donate such a large amount of money, the readers are given no choice but to contribute nothing whatsoever. His solution is not realistic and does not take into account the long-term financial impact this type of donation contribution system would have on a country’s economy.
In his article, the author Peter Singer presents valid points within his work in a way that provokes one to question their morals and ethics. He rationalizes the gift of donation in an unconventional but motivating manor. The purpose of “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” is to encourage people to reevaluate his or her ability to contribute to the underprivileged people of the world. Singer is addressing this article to any person with the ability to donate. The author makes it clear that nearly everyone has the ability to make a difference is others lives. Additionally, in “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, the author explain that we have a duty to give, but he is not stating whether it is a duty of justice in Narveson’s sense. He is not stating if would be morally correct for anyone to force us or impose to us to give to the needy. This author is trying to persuade or convince people to give voluntarily. The author is not enforcing to do something, this is contrary to Narveson’s position “enforced fee”. “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” addresses the urgency for a more generous world. Peter Singer presents valid points within his work in a way that provokes one to question their morals and ethics. He rationalizes the gift of donation in an unconventional but motivating manor. The main purpose of “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” is to