Singer discussed that “whatever money you're spending on luxurious not necessities, should be given away”, and to this I say a firm no. There is a limit to kindness I believe. Yes, what goes around comes around. If you're a good person, good things will occur to you, but there's a limit to how much a person can actually give. The limit of aid an individual can extend to, is till their happiness is compromised. So, an individual can donate half of their saving if they would like, but once giving extends to diminishing one’s happiness it is time to pull the plug. There is no benefit in giving to the less fortunate, if you are miserable. Yes, at the end of the day you are aiding x amount of children not to go hungry; but the extent of one’s happiness …show more content…
Your mind is unquestionably your existence and losing control of your mental state, will be your downfall. As a result, one must place one’s happiness first above others. Being mentally stable in the twenty-first century is difficult to come by & if you can say that you are mentally sound, you deserve a pat on the back. When money comes to play; especially not having enough to come by can take a toll on one’s mental health. This brings up my second point of why I do not agree with Singer; the future. What lays ahead is unknown. Perhaps times of bliss and laughter, hardships and tears, or a combination of both. At the end of the day, all that is certain is the unknown. We have to be prepared for anything; especially financially. Our financial situation can change, in a snap of a finger. One second, we can possess more than we need, and one second later we can possess nothing. As a result, we should keep our earring versus giving it all away to the needy. Obviously, x amount of dollars would go to the necessities, but the remaining x amount of dollars should either go to saving and or …show more content…
All they can practically do is nothing and hope everything will be ok; but perhaps family and friends will help out; but this is not always certain. In addition, we deserve to treat ourselves. At the end of the day we are human, and we deserve to feel happiness. We need money for basic necessities and at the same time as reward for ourselves. If we don’t have money to treat ourselves for example a movie or a fancy dinner; there is no point in living life. If one’s life just revolves around working all day to put food on the table and paying one’s bills and in addition, donating the rest; one is not living life. Not living a fully human, fully alive life at the very least. One is basically living life for someone else’s existence, but your own. The splendid thing is, that one can have both; a life of glee and also giving. This is what one would call balance. So yes, one can go to work and pay bills, place food on the table, go out a movie once a week and a fancy dinner; but also donate twenty dollars to the poor once a month. Or instead, one only watches a movie once a week and donates that x amount of money from what would be of the fancy dinner to the needy; and the list continues on about what one can do to aid the
In his essay, Singer states that "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." However, if individuals in first world countries were to continuously donate rather than spending that money on luxuries, the majority of their income would be spent on alleviating a global issue and their savings would ultimately diminish down to the level of global poverty until they would be unable to give any more.
To describe Peter Singer’s main argument for why we have an obligation to help people in need, I will
Rather than focusing on what I don’t have and lack, I will try to appreciate what I do have. I will try to approach the life with an open mindset and not with a victimized mindset. I also want to be able to experience the peace that Liz Murray mentioned of not having to worry about always receiving more than giving. I do not want to surround myself with a restless mentality of counting things I could have and the things I do not have. Cynicism will definitely get the best of people and I do not want to live in a world where everybody scrambles around trying to chase down a materialistic lifestyle while having no concern about others. Liz Murray has taught me to embrace the notion of community in addition to improving oneself. English was a second language for me and without the help of the precious individuals who I have met along my journey I would not been able to write this essay today. A person simply does not live by himself, but also with other individuals within a community. If we feel the need to improve the quality of our lives, we also have the responsibility to look out for those who are not capable of doing it
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...
“The singer solution to word poverty “Is a way to just remind Americans that have a surplus amount of money that in the world that there are people who don’t have the funds as well as the opportunity to overcome a life of poverty that It’s not too late to make a difference, Peter Singer suggests that we must find ways to save the lives of strangers when we can do so at fairly little cost to ourselves.
... to World Poverty", the speaker uses potent pathos, thought provoking rhetorical questions, ethos, and a assertive tone to demonstrate that it is in the best interest of man kind for those living lives of luxury to exchange opulence for altruistic lifestyles which leads to a more meaningful existence. Through his usage of rhetorical questions and aggressive tone the speaker is able encourage self reflection which leads to greater acceptance of his utilitarian philosophy. The speaker also utilizes a bold tone, allusions, and references to professionals such as Peter Unger to build his credibility as an author and to gain the trust and respect of his audience. Singer uses pathos along with his assertive tone to evoke anger from the audience and make them more willing to accept the idea that forsaking materialism is in the best interest of the world community.
Have you ever wondered how some athletes have gotten so good at a certain sport? Have you ever thought about what they did in order for them to get this good? For some the answer is simple; workout and train. But for others the answer is different; the use of performance enhancing drugs such as steroids. There are some people that argue that steroids should be legalized and allowed in professional sports. Other people argue that steroids should not be allowed. Today I am going to state my opinion and justify my reason. Steroids should not be allowed in professional sports because it can be very dangerous to the athlete’s health, it is a way to gain and un-fair advantage and it can be dangerous in both social and physical aspects.
The idea of justice although obvious for philosophers like Locke, Rousseau, and John Rawls, proves itself to be a labyrinthine issue for Americans; nevertheless, ones thing is clear: the people are guaranteed the ability to pursue happiness. Sometimes searching for American equity juxtaposes the American Dream to the pursuit of happiness with a paralytic justice. However, justice in all forms plays a part through the governments duty; who does the government serve and protect? Despite this, opportunity continues to play a major role in correlation to the hopes and aspirations of many Americans; what freedoms to pursue happiness would Americans receive if they were striped of their rights?
Conclusion Time: The “glorious” life ain’t all that it’s cracked up to be. Because when a person wakes up from the fantasy of having everything they want, they are able to realize that money is nothing more than paper with a dead man’s face on it. The youth should know that there is more to life than wealth. Look hard, and they will be able to find what I’m talking about.
Mental disorders are rapidly becoming more common with each new generation born in the world. Currently, nearly one in two people suffer from some form of depression, anxiety, or other mental health problem at some point in their lives (Editor). With so many people suffering from their mental illnesses, steps have been taken in order to get help needed for these people but progress has been slow. In the medical world, hospitals are treating those with physical problems with more care than those with mental problems. Prescription drugs can only do so much helping the mentally ill go through their daily lives and more should be done to help those who need more than medicine to cope with their illness. Mental health should be considered just as important as physical health because of how advanced physical healing is, how the public reacts to those with mental illness, and due to the consequences that could happen if the illness is not correctly helped.
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.
What is the value of a life? Is it how long you live, what you accomplish during your lifetime, or things you acquire? The ethics and moral reasoning behind this simple question does wealth equate to happiness? This has been asked many times and the debate from both sides has great points and emphasis, but I would like to talk about those who seem to be thrown on the back burner the needy. Now if you were to hear the word needy many different categories come to mind homeless, unemployed, sick, and the underprivileged. Each sector is different in terms of the needs and what is asked to help them: however they stand together in regards to some type of assistance to help them attain and maintain simple everyday tasks in their lives.
A young, teenage girl sits with her friends, talking, laughing, and making jokes. She seems completely normal and happy, even. What people don’t know is that this is nothing but a mask covering the loneliness that seems to run through her veins, and the unexplainable sadness that never goes away. She fears speaking of it, of admitting the uncontrollable hatred she feels for everything about herself, so much that she contemplates ending it all. The fact is, suicide is the third leading cause for death in people under the age of twenty-five. Our country needs to stop seeing this as a casual thing. Depression, anxiety, and suicide in youth are real and serious issues that we need to be more aware of in today’s society.
In my view, happiness is not the highest good. There are some kind of actions do not aim at happiness but are meaningful for the actors. Revenge, for example, does not give people happiness all the time, but I have read many stories of revenge in my high school history textbook. Some people revenged for their families, some revenged for strangers, and some did for their countries. In many cases, people chose to do that even knowing revenge will hurt themselves and do not lead to happiness. Suicide is another example. If happiness is the highest good, then no one will do things do not make one happy. What makes some rational people choose to suicide, since suicide does not make people happy. There exists decisions people make do not aim at happiness, that is why I do not believe happiness is the highest good.
I believe that happiness is the key to living a good and prosperous life. Through all of the sadness and hate in the world, happiness gives me hope. It gives not only me, but others hope and joy. Happiness gives us something to hold onto, therefore we cherish it as much as we can.