Not In Our World 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. First, a pro to having prosperous people donate all money not needed for the basic requirements of life is that it could possibly end world hunger. Ending world hunger is a huge problem that many have tried to find a solution for. Another pro could be the advancement in oversea economies. With money, people that were once struggling could begin to start businesses and create innovation. A third pro could be creating a better environment for the world. If others begin to help overseas then we could create a world that can all rely on eachother. Hopefully, a world without hate. …show more content…
People would argue that they worked for that money so they deserve to keep it. Others would say that it’s an “every man for himself” world. Another con is that is may help oversea economies, but it would destroy ours. We use money to buy luxuries and use money to innovate. It wouldn’t make sense to destroy our economy to help aid theirs. Finally the third con is that the idea is just too good to be true. It would work like communism. Everyone would be equal. Everyone would get to eat. It’s a nice idea, but it would never work. Not everyone can get along and play nicely. People are selfish and greedy. It’s the same reason communism would never work. It may be ideal; however, the rich would never willingly give their money to people that they don’t know or care
Peter Singer states two principles on the effects of famine, affluence, and morality which he feels that everyone should abide by. The first argument made is that lack of food, shelter and medicine is bad and can lead to feeling pain and death. I for one, could agree on this assumption just by analyzing it carefully. We see Singer on his thesis elaborate the causes of famine within East Bengal in 1970s. As governments and individuals within the world see the massive flooding’s and mismanagement of food issuing one hopes that we all as a society could take action to help stop such suffering and act on a situation like the impaired damage that happened with East Bengal. This then leads to Singer’s second argument; is if it is in our power to
Peter Singer a philosopher and professor at Princeton University who wrote the essay titled “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, where he argues that wealthy people have a moral obligation to help provide to developing nation’s resources that would increase their standard of living and decrease death due to starvation, exposure, and preventable sicknesses. John Arthur’s essay argues that Singer says that all affluent people have a moral obligation to give their money to poor people to the extent that the wealthy person would be on the same level as the poor person, poor people have no positive right to our assistance, and wealthy people have a negative right to their property, which weighs against their obligation.
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.
One could argue that it is okay to keep one’s earnings for themselves, and that a more meaningful and realistic way of giving to the poor is through your time. When a person donates money to a large charity, often times, only a minimum of that money actually makes it to those in need. Therefore, it probably is more of a use to those in poverty that one is of physical helps. If one was unable to physically donate time, due to distance, there are organizations where they can donate gently used clothing. This is also another more realistic way of helping to end poverty. This theory would leave society to be able to choose how much they donate, buy the expenses they wish with their own income, and donate anything they no longer
Peter Singer brings up a valid point: that we should try to help others that are less fortunate than us, however the way he suggests we should go about this is too severe. There are ways to be both globally conscious, and use our money for self enjoyment. One way to do this is by supporting products that do charity work or
In this paper I will examine both Peter Singer’s and Onora O 'Neill 's positions on famine relief. I will argue that O’Neill’s position is more suitable than Singer’s extreme standpoint. First I will, present O’Neill’s argument. I will then present a possible counter-argument to one of my premises. Finally I will show how this counter-argument is fallacious and how O’Neill’s argument in fact goes through.
How much money is one morally obligated to give to relief overseas? Many In people would say that although it is a good thing to do, one is not obligated to give anything. Other people would say that if a person has more than he needs, then he should donate a portion of what he has. Peter Singer, however, proposes a radically different view. His essay, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” focuses on the Bengal crisis in 1971 and claims that one is morally obligated to give as much as possible. His thesis supports the idea that “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” (399). He says that one's obligation to give to people in need half-way around the world is just as strong as the obligation to give to one's neighbor in need. Even more than that, he says that one should keep giving until, by giving more, you would be in a worse position than the people one means to help. Singer's claim is so different than people's typical idea of morality that is it is easy to quickly dismiss it as being absurd. Saying that one should provide monetary relief to the point that you are in as bad a position as those receiving your aid seems to go against common sense. However, when the evidence he presents is considered, it is impossible not to wonder if he might be right.
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
Imagine living in a community where every minute of everyday you are hungry, under clothed, and at risk at death because you are poor. Now imagine waking up and your biggest problem was which sweater to wear with which jeans. Both are scenarios that occur on a daily basis in our countries, some more extreme than others. With that in mind, this raises the question of whether rich nations have an obligation to help those nations in need. People who earn above a certain income should be forced to donate 10% of their money to the poor because, it will help break the vicious circle of poverty, help the society at large to move forward, and lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth. The poor do not have the money to save; all of the income goes to food, lodging, and heating bills, which are essential for survival. There is little left over to enjoy the luxuries of life, such as a home with heating, education, medical care, or even three proper meals a day. Because of their lack of education, they cannot get a well paying job, and thus are stuck in the lower classes of society. To he...
Richard Miller argues that we are morally obliged to give until we reach the point at which, giving more would worsen our own lives. Garett Cullity also holds a similar position, however notes that we should stop giving if we reach a point at which any further contributions would undermine our pursuit of life ambitions. Philosopher Thomas Aquinas argued in support of this moral obligation and stressed that if we have more money than we need, then we owe the excess amount to those in poverty. Therefore, if we choose to accept any of these reasoning 's, then we have a moral obligation to give away at least 10% of our income to help aid agencies such
The decision to end world hunger is a groups effort that can provide little by little from everyone to make a difference that will be effective. “the decision and actions of human beings can prevent this suffering” (Singer 554). The action of the human race itself that re better off can save the life of many suffering that are worse off. Singer takes on the case that it should be a moral duty to help others because people often help those that are in reach to them and ignoring to sacrifice and put the effort to help those that are far of reach from them as well. Singer wants us to follow the famine relief and support those in need even if it means putting aside ours wants and benefiting to those who are suffering needs. “We would not be sacrificing anything significant if we were to continue to wear our old clothes, and give the money to famine relief. By doing so, we would be preventing another person from starving. It follows from what I have said earlier that we ought to give money away, rather than spend it on clothes which we do not need to keep us warm. To do so is not charitable or generous” (singer 557). Giving to a suffering nation should be as enjoyable or even more so than buying a new dress and just because you give it is not a generosity or charitable either because you are supporting life, which should not be an option. If it is in our will to prevent harm,
When someone works hard to earn their money I believe it is up to that person how they want to spend it. According to Peter Singer (“The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” in G. Muller’s The New World Reader, pp. 361-368), it is immoral to spend money unnecessarily when that money can be used to help a starving child. I disagree with this statement. I am going to discuss my opinion on poverty and how I believe that spending money unnecessarily is not immoral.
Very tough conditions." Also the belief that “money can buy anything” is absurd and disgusting. Money cannot buy or return dignity and self-respect”.working-age people without jobs, and all kinds of problems that come along with that. Very tough conditions." Also the belief that “money can buy anything” is absurd and disgusting. Money cannot buy or return dignity and self-respect”.and plus and they wouldn't use it all for schools .and probably wouldn't use it for useful
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.