Indeed, the Bible does require a certain amount of impartiality. James 2:1-26 instructs “show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory. For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, ‘You sit here in a good place,’ while you say to the poor man, ‘You stand over there,’ or ‘Sit down at my feet,’ have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?” (Favoritism). Further, in Galatians 3:28, it says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in …show more content…
The utilitarian would say that any action can be deemed moral if the outcomes are what is best for the most amount of people. However, the Bible, even in regard to poverty, has certain limits for what is moral or not, regardless of their outcomes. Consider the following scenario. A wealthy man is in the hospital with dire health problems. He can be saved if the doctor gives him an expensive drug, but if he is not given it, he will surely die. He has no surviving family and, as a workaholic, no friends who will truly miss him. If he were to die, his organs would be donated to those who desperately need them, and his wealth donated to charity, in accordance with his will, as he has no family to inherit it. In this case, according to utilitarian theory, surely it would be morally sound for the doctor to refrain from administering the drug. The people who received his organs, as well as the poor who received money to afford their basic necessities, will surely have their lives extremely affected and their happiness maximized. In fact, by saving this one man, the doctor is letting many other innocent people die. Yet no Christian could possibly think it is morally right to let the man die, even for the sake of the poor. Apparent in the Bible is that all humans are made in God’s likeness, and therefore, life is valuable. …show more content…
Pogge critiques Singer’s view on helping the global crisis because Singer has “the tacit assumption that we are not contributing to the distress we are able to alleviate” (Mieth 20). He says this specifically of the example of the child drowning that Singer gives. Despite the fact that Pogge and Singer would agree that the bystander is morally responsible for trying to save the child, Pogge points out one specific difference between this case and the case of world poverty. Unlike the bystanders, those living in affluent societies are at least partially responsible for the poverty of those around the world. The global systems created with a Washington consensus, as well as years of colonialism, have effectively assured the poverty of developing nations. As such, not only is it a violation of rights not to help the poor, giving to the poor is actually compensation for years of the poor’s rights to non-poverty being
Often times, the middle and upper classes underestimate the amount of poverty left in our society. In “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Peter Singer reaches out to the lucrative to help the misfortune. Although Singer believes that, the wealthy has a responsibility in providing help to the less fortunate, Singer conducts theories in which he explains how we as Americans spend more on luxuries rather than necessities. If the wealthy are fortunate enough to go out to fancy meals, they should be able to provide food for a poor family or medicine for the children. The negative attributes outweigh the positive due to the lack of supporting detail from the positive in which helps us better understand that helping people is the right thing to do rather than sitting back and doing nothing but demands that Americans donate every cent of their extra money to help the poor. According to Singer, if we provide a foundation for the misfortune we will not only make the world a better place but we will feel a relief inside that world poverty will soon end. The argument singer gives has no supporting details in which he tries and persuade the wealthy to donate money to the poor without clear thoughts.
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 organizes his arguments into an outline form allowing a reader to take individual thoughts, adding them together giving a “big picture.” Within the first few pages, Singer shares two guiding assumptions in regards to his argument to which I stated above. The first assumption states “that suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad” (231). Singer steps away from the typical writing style; he states the assumption yet he does not give a personal comment in regards to the assumption. He chooses to do so because the assumption itself is surely uncontroversial; most people would agree, but to those who don’t agree, there are so many possibilities at which to arrive to this assumption that, after all, if they don’t yet comprehend its truth, it would be hard to convince them of its accuracy. Speaking for myself, if I encountered an individual that does not agree to the assumption that death by avoidable causes is bad; I would not hesitate to declare them of being heartless. There are many cases, whether across oceans on foreign land or areas to which we live, where people are dying because of inescapable, unfortunate reasons. Within such cases, even a possible little voice in the back of the head can lead one to wonder who has the responsibility of helping those who are enduring such unnecessary deaths. This sense of wonder leads us to Singer’s second assumption; “if it is in our power to prevent something from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it” (231). To better clarify what this assumption is looking for, Singer points out that “It requires u...
response to the Singer. Cullity argues that Singer’s conclusion, that we ought to help others in need so long as this does not cause any significant damage to ourselves, is severely demanding, as it is essentially arguing that we are morally obligated to help everybody in the world. The only way in which we would be able to justify not helping somebody who needed our help would be if doing so would put the person helping at significant risk. Cullity argues in his paper that Singer’s argument is asking too much of people when it claims that donating to aid agencies is a moral obligation and that not doing so would be immoral. His main way of doing so is by rejecting the Severe Demand.
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.
In order to understand why O’Neill’s position is superior to Singer’s position on famine relief, I will present information on both sides. O’Neill gives a Kantian, duty-based explanation, that focuses on people 's intentions. One of the central claims of Kantian ethics is that one must never treat a person, either oneself or another, as mere
Peter Singer’s article “What Should a Billionaire Give- and What Should You?” focuses on how the wealthy could do more to relieve global poverty. Singer uses obvious examples of pathos by showing the example walking by a shallow pond and observing a small child drowning. Singer explains that everyone would save the child at minimal inconvenience, he also says ruining a pair of shoes at the expense of the child is not acceptable for a child to drown. This metaphor shows Singers heavy use of pathos within the article. Singer also exposes the nature of human nature when he our inclination to collect all the things we want with ignoring global poverty and us being responsible for the deaths of the children. Singer argues that wealthy people should
In this paper, I will argue against two articles which were written against Singer’s view, and against helping the poor countries in general. I will argue against John Arthur’s article Famine Relief and the Ideal Moral Code (1974 ) ,and Garrett Hardin’s article Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor ( 1976); I will show that both articles are exaggerating the negative consequences of aiding the poor, as well as building them on false assumptions. Both Arthur and Hardin are promoting the self-interest without considering the rights of others, and without considering that giving for famine relief means giving life to many children.
... 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.
“The only real nation is humanity” (Farmer 123). This quote represents a huge message that is received in, Tracy Kidder’s, Mountains Beyond Mountains. This book argues that universal healthcare is a right and not a privilege. Kidder’s book also shows the audience that every individual, no matter what the circumstances, is entitled to receive quality health care. In the book Kidder represents, Paul Farmer, a man who spends his entire life determined to improve the health care of impoverished areas around the world, namely Haiti, one of the poorest nations in the world. By doing this the audience learns of the horrible circumstances, and the lack of quality health care that nations like Haiti live with everyday, why every person has the right to healthcare no matter what, and how cost effectiveness should not determine whether or not these people get to live or die. Two texts that also argue this idea are Monte Leach’s “Ensuring Health Care as a Global Human Right,” and Darshak Sanghavi’s “Is it Cost Effective to Treat the World’s Poor.” Leach’s article is an interview with Benjamin Crème that illustrates why food, shelter, education, and healthcare are human rights that have to be available to everyone. He shares many of the same views on health care as Farmer, and the two also share similar solutions to this ongoing problem. Leach also talks about the rapidly growing aids epidemic, and how it must be stopped. Like farmer, he also argues that it is easier to prevent these diseases then to cure them. Furthermore, Sanghavi’s article represents many of the questions that people would ask about cost effectiveness. Yet similar to Farmer’s views, Sanghavi argues that letting the poor d...
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.
Utilitarianism is an example of Consequentialist Ethics, where the morality of an action is determined by its accomplishing its desired results. In both scenarios the desired result was to save the lives of thousands of people in the community. Therefore, a Utilitarian would say that the actions taken in both of the scenarios are moral. Since an (Act) Utilitarian believes that actions should be judged according to the results it achieves. Happiness should not be simply one's own, but that of the greatest number. In both scenarios, the end result saved the lives of 5,000 members of the community. The end result is the only concern and to what extreme is taken to reach this result is of no matter. In these instances the things that are lost are an Inmates religious beliefs or a mothers fetus, on the other hand Thousands of citizens were saved from dying from this disease.
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 said; “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” (Famine, Affluence, and Morality). As human beings, we have a moral compulsion to help other people, despite the verity that they may be strangers, especially when whatever type of aid we may render can in no approach have a more significant consequence on our own life.
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.