Jan Narveson and Peter Singer have two conflicting ideas about world poverty and starvation. In Narveson’s “Feeding the Hungry”, he argues that “any help we give to the starving is entirely morally optional. We may give if we like, but such assistance is not morally required” (Narveson 231). Peter Singer basically has the complete opposite view about this issue. His argument in “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” is that “our ordinary patterns of spending money on ourselves are immoral” (Singer 223). He believes that world poverty could be solved if people in affluent nations donated at least ten to twenty percent of their yearly income. These two philosophers do a great job of supporting their arguments by using real world examples and even …show more content…
People like to read about topics that they can relate to, especially because world poverty and starvation are still issues in many impoverished countries. Both of these articles stir up a lot of controversy between people in wealthier nations such as the United States because not everyone is going to be willing to donate ten to twenty percent of their yearly income. I personally believe that it is not my moral obligation to feed the poor and hungry because I have my own life and my loved ones to worry about. I’m not saying we shouldn’t give anything to people in need of help, but there’s just so much you can do to help other people. Singer mentions that organizations like UNICEF and Oxfam America collect money to save the lives of children. Let’s say you donate $200 to one of these organizations. You might be able to help one “sickly 2-year-old transform into a healthy 6-year-old” but what happens after that? Does the 6-year-old child continue to be healthy? What can you do to make sure that your initial donation of $200 benefits the child in the long run? I’m sure you don’t just want to temporarily help a child in need (Singer
Singer, Peter. “The Singer Solution to World Poverty.” in The Allyn & Bacon Guide to Writing. John D. Ramage, John C. Bean, and June Johnson. 5th ed. New York: Longman, 2009. 545-49. Print.
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.
“The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” published in the New York Times Magazine is an essay that focuses on convincing the reader to donate their extra income to charities. Singer's solution suggests that every American should stop using their money to buy luxuries but rather donate that money to charities, including UNICEF and over sea aid organizations. The opening of the piece starts with a hypothetical scenario, where Dora is put into a situation where she can choose between gaining extra cash verses saving a child’s life. The essay continues to another scenario where Bob, who is also put into a critical decision making choice, has to choose between saving his valuable car and saving a child’s life. Singer then ties together these scenarios and how
Singer starts with the base of assumption that suffering and death from lack of the essentials of food, water, shelter, and proper medical assistance are bad. I find no problem with accepting this assumption as it is consistent with most widely accepted moral theories. Singer continues by stating “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it”(Singer, Pg.231). Like his first statement, this one is easy to swallow. No moral code, save for maybe ethical egoism or nihilism, would attempt to refute either of his premises. His final conclusion is that if it is in our power to stop suffering and death from lack of the essentials, without sacrificing anything of comparable moral worth, we are morally obligated to do so. This essentially removes the current definition of charity, making giving money to famine relief, not a supererogatory act, but a moral duty of all people who have the ability to do so. Singer admits that this would drastically change the way people live their lives. Instead of living with any disposable income, people would be giving money to those who are living under bad or unsurvivable conditions. But wi...
...nd usually the institutions and churches do not have the resources to provide a safety net for starving people. What we have found when working with the World Bank is that the poor man's safety net, the best investment, is school feeding. And if you fill the cup with local agriculture from small farmers, you have a transformative effect. Many kids in the world can't go to school because they have to go beg and find a meal. But when that food is there, it's transformative. It costs less than 25 cents a day to change a kid's life.” (Sheeran)
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...
Hunger and poverty will always exist. Many needy nations are stuck in a black hole, in which, there is no light at the end of the tunnel. This situation could be fixed, if the poor nations had a little help or assistance. Is it morally good for the better off nations to help or support those who are in need? Who benefits from this sponsorship in the long run? Poverty-stricken nations could seek relief if the silk-stocking nations aid in supplying goods. Many of the moneyed nations are torn between helping or not those who are less fortunate. Jonathan Swift and Garrett Hardin have two very different opinions on whether to aid those who were not born into riches. Swift uses a satire for the low-income nations of eating and using offspring
Famine, Affluence, and Morality; Singer suggested, “we should prevent bad occurrences unless, to do so, we had to sacrifice something morally significant” (C&M, 827). However, different philosophers and writers have criticized his view and the general idea to help the poor.
Peter Singer, in his influential essay “Famine, Affluence and Poverty”, argues that affluent people have the moral obligation to contribute to charity in order to save the poor from suffering; any spending on luxuries would be unjustified as long as it can be used to improve other’s lives. In developing his argument, Singer involved one crucial premise known as the Principle of Sacrifice—“If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it”. To show that such principle has the property to be held universal, Singer refers to a scenario in which a person witnesses a drowning child. Most people, by common sense, hold that the witness has the moral duty to rescue the child despite some potential costs. Since letting people die in poverty is no different from watching a child drowning without offering any help, Singer goes on and concludes that affluent people have the moral duty to keep donating to the poor until an increment of money makes no further contribution.
People are starving all over the world. They lack food, water, and basic medication. Some suggest that the wealthy should donate and do their part to help. Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics, wrote an article called “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” in The New York Times Magazine, in which he suggests that the prosperous people should donate all money not needed for the basic requirements of life.
The writer behind “Singers Solution to World Poverty” advocates that U.S. citizens give away the majority of their dispensable income in order to end global suffering. Peter Singer makes numerous assumptions within his proposal about world poverty, and they are founded on the principle that Americans spend too much money on items and services that they do not need.
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
In the excerpt “Rich and Poor” from Peter Singer’s book “Practical Ethics,” Singer critiques how he portrays the way we respond to both absolute poverty and absolute affluence. Before coming to this class, I have always believed that donating or giving something of your own to help someone else is a moral decision. After reading Peter Singer’s argument that we are obligated to assist extreme poverty, I remain with the same beliefs I previously had. I will argue that Singer’s argument is not convincing. I will demonstrate that there are important differences between being obligated to save a small child from drowning (in his Shallow Pond Example) and being obligated to assist absolute poverty. These differences restrict his argument by analogy for the obligation to assist in the case of absolute poverty.
Introduction “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” is a piece written by moral philosopher, Peter Singer, who places a challenge on our traditional notions of charitable giving. The essay argues in favour of donating, and of the moral obligation imposed upon us to contribute and help the global poor with humanitarian purposes. By critically assessing Singer’s writing, this reflection paper will study the main arguments advocated for in his work, as well as possible objections. Main arguments of the article Throughout the piece, Singer highlights that ‘we ought to give money away and it is wrong not to do so.’ This statement is not merely showing that it will be commendable to give money, but failing to give will be morally wrong.
While images of starving orphans may touch the hearts of wealthy westerners, those same images may be deceiving the viewers to achieve higher donation rates. The cash is then distributed in a way that the organizations see fit. The donor learns nothing about the political and economical structure in the third world country that they have “supported,” and they continue about their day with no knowledge of where their money actually ended up. There is a lack of education, and as a result the financial gap between the rich and the poor continues to increase.