Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Peter singer basic argument
Peter singer basic argument
Peter singer basic argument
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Peter singer basic argument
Autocratic Plight for World Poverty We spend our money gratuitously. Americans revolve their economy around consumerism. "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" argues that people should donate a significant portion of their income to the poor. The author poses hypotheticals and questions whether the reader will give what they don’t need. The imaginary settings, though weak and petty, are thought-provoking and grab the reader’s attention. Yet in the self-centered society we live, not only are our spending habits necessary, but Peter Singer’s arguments are a turn-off and work to dissuade rather than encourage donations. Singer opens his arguments with Dora, a character in the Brazilian film Central Station, deciding to sell a homeless child …show more content…
The idea that an imaginary character deciding to save his car rather than a child’s life compares to someone being responsible for the death of an actual child for not donating money is preposterous. His idea that the consequences of inaction result in the death of a child is wrong. I would argue that this particular child would die anyway. Our prosperity has little to do with someone else’s misfortune. We are not directly or indirectly responsible for a child’s death due to …show more content…
Rich people control everything and that simple idea is aiding and abetting the status quo. Early on, he asked that everyone donate two hundred dollars. Singer proved that it was enough to save a child’s life by using well-studied research. Yet he continues to argue that everyone donate any extra money to charity. This is such an autocratic assertion. Not only is such a demand derailing for anyone who feels the least bit philanthropic, but it also ignores how economics work. Reinvesting money in an economy is what will create a job in order to save future families from poverty. Sending money without a return to a rich non-profit will simply enrich the wealthy. The fraction of a penny that a family might receive from a donation may save them for a day, but if already destined for a morbid ending, you cannot simply rescue someone by donating to a large organization. You can, however, save future families by investing that money in an already well-established economy, where you receive something in return, in order to help create future
He continued to mention how Americas are greedy with their money and they can use it to save children’s lives instead of spending money on unnecessary things. Another story was mentioned about a guy named Bob. Bob had had a nice expensive car he had all his money invested into. One day it was parked on railroad tracks and a train was coming, Bob then saw a child also on the train tracks. He had a choice, to save the kid or to save his life investments. Bob had chosen to save his car in which he let the kid get hit. Therefore, only one kid was killed but there are even more kids dying across seas. Singer mentions many times throughout the article how to donate money to save lives. While also mentioning all the different organizations you can use to donate, and how much you should donate. Peter says that it only takes “$200 to save a child’s life. Singer also thinks that Americans should donate any extra money they have instead of going out to dinner or spending money on television’s. He explained that people should donate any income that they make that isn’t a necessity to
Singer’s belief that everyone should give away all excess wealth to eliminate as much suffering as possible conflicts with the idea of competition and, therefore, reduces the productivity of human civilization. Peter Singer, a professor of moral philosophy, stated in his essay “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” that it is everyone’s duty to participate in philanthropy since it is morally wrong to not help someone who is suffering. Singer thoroughly explained the details of the “duty” of philanthropy: “we ought to give until we reach the level of marginal utility - that is, the level at which, by giving more, I would cause as much suffering to myself or my dependents as I would relieve by my gift.” If this philosophy is followed, and the poor beneficiary experienced the same level of comfort as the wealthy benefactor, then what incentive would the beneficiary have for
Throughout his essay, Singer argues that we must reject the common sense view of giving to charity. The common sense view of giving to charity is one that is supererogatory; it is not obligated for us
In Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence and Morality,” Singer makes three claims about moral duty; that avoidable suffering is bad, that it is our moral obligation to help others in need, and that we should help those in suffering regardless of their distance to us or if others are in the same position as we are to help. First, I will elaborate on Singer’s arguments for each of these positions. Next, I will discuss two objections to Singer’s position, one that he debates in his writings and another that I examine on my own, and Singer’s responses to those objections. Then I will examine why Singer’s rebuttals to the objections were successful.
This paper explores Peter Singer’s argument, in Famine, Affluence, and Morality, that we have morally required obligations to those in need. The explanation of his argument and conclusion, if accepted, would dictate changes to our lifestyle as well as our conceptions of duty and charity, and would be particularly demanding of the affluent. In response to the central case presented by Singer, John Kekes offers his version, which he labels the and points out some objections. Revisions of the principle provide some response to the objections, but raise additional problems. Yet, in the end, the revisions provide support for Singer’s basic argument that, in some way, we ought to help those in need.
Peter Singer's paper “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”has made a drastic impact in modern applied ethics. The simple nature of the paper makes for an easy read, yet the point clearly set out by Singer is at ends with the targeted audiences' popular beliefs. Although most will object to Singer's idea by throwing away a basic principle of most moral theories, I wish to deny Singer's solution by showing that the ability to apply Singer's conclusion is not reasonable and does not address the problem's core.
Singer's argument appears to be mainly an appeal to logos, in his argument he reasons why he thinks it is morally required of people to give for famine relief and other needs. However, his argument relies heavily on pathos as well. The main thrust of his argument is this “If I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child dro...
Some would rather spend the extra $200 on a nice dinner night than to donate it overseas to children that really need it. Also, two-thirds of someone's income they bring in are used for necessities, but the other one-third is used for a newer TV set, a vacation, even brand new clothes because the old ones went out of style. A scenario like Bob and his Bugatti is a perfect example. He was right. You cannot judge Bob for saving his car rather than the child if you won't even donate $200 to save a child's life.
“The Singer Solution to World Poverty” by Peter Singer addresses the issues of world poverty by proposing a solution in a Utilitarian perspective. Singer first addresses the reader by providing a summary of the film Central Station to discuss how a woman delivered a homeless boy to wealthy foreigners in order to purchase a T.V. set. But she realized that the child’s organs would be sold for transplants and decided to take the child back. Singer provides another example where a man (close to retirement) owned a Bugatti car, had the choice to save the boy by having his car be struck by a train or let the boy die, as a result, the boy dies from his decision. These serve as the foundation of Singer’s solution arguing that people should only spend their money on necessities, become less materialistic, and donate the remainder of their money to a charity that helps children in underprivileged areas.
In the essay, "The Singer Solution to World Poverty", Singer uses pathos and an assertive tone to emphasize the dire moral issues plaguing the United States and to demonstrate to the audience that their money would be best spent helping others. Singer begins his essay with an allusion to the Brazilian film, Central Station, when he says, "He (a homeless boy) will be killed and his organs sold for transplantation" Singer uses his bold tone to bluntly state that an innocent boy, like an old car, will be used as spare parts. Since the boy was an innocent child, Singer evokes anger from the audience who resents Dora, the one who sold the boy, for her immoral decision to trade the boy's life for something as menial as a television set. The audience, in reaction to the emotional appeal and bold tone, find themselves wishing there was a way that they could help the boy and makes...
While the solution to world poverty which has been proposed by Singer, who is a philosopher and bioethics professor, is thought-provoking due to its strong idealism,
From "The Singer Solution to World Poverty." The New York Times Magazine (1999). Using several examples to present his case, Peter Singer debates that our spending on unessential items & luxuries, should be contributed to help solve poverty. Selfishness is among what comprise the core of Singers ethical thinking, from a very influential and controversial Philosopher Peter Singer portrays to his readers that people have motive to spend money on luxurious things in contrast to having the thought of sacrificing what you may have to help the needy. Peter Singer depicts two stories that question an individual’s morals.
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
Peter Singer practices utilitarianism, he believes the consequence of an action matters more than the reason behind the action. Singer is trying to convince his audience to donate their money to end world poverty. He believes it is moral to give as much money as the person can give, allowing them to purchase just enough for them to live on, and this will be the right action to take. Singer is aiming toward the United States to contribute more to charity. Singer does not consider specific aspects that do not support his argument and causes his argument to not list specific aspects of his belief. Singer’s argument is not a good argument because he does not consider the ramifications of people donating their surplus of money would do to the economy; is it our duty to feed the poor; and that our moral intuitions are not consequentialist at all when it concerns what our rescue duties entail.