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. Singer argues that people who live in countries that are affluent should change their ways of living and their conception of what …show more content…
The relevance between the child drowning and extreme poverty would seem accurate, but becomes unconvincing when he claims distance should not make a difference as a person is more likely to assist someone closer rather than far away. In favor of the objections towards Singer’s argument, it is only plausible to be obligated to assist if you knew the cause and assisted to the extent of a permanent solution to the situation like you would in Singer’s example if you saved the child from drowning. After reading Garritt Hardin’s objection, it allowed me to have a clearer understanding of the restrictions in Singer’s argument that lead me to remain unconvinced and with the same beliefs as I previously did before this class. Therefore, I can conclude that Peter Singer’s analogy is too restricted and I do not believe that we are obligated to assist rather it is a moral
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
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.
In Peter Singer’s “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” an article in The Allyn & Bacon Guide to Writing. Peter Singer debates the only method to solving world poverty is simply the money that is being spent on necessities, such as luxuries, should be donated to charity.If this is not done, the question of morality and virtue is put in place. Singer’s article begins by referring to a Brazilian movie Central Stadium, the film is centered on Dora, a retired schoolteacher, who delivers a homeless nine-year-old-boy to an address where he would supposedly be adopted. In return she would be given thousands of dollars, thus spending some of it on a television set. Singer then poses an ethical question, asking what the distinction is “between a Brazilian who sells a homeless child to organ peddlers and an American who already has a TV and upgrades to a better one, knowing that the money could be donated to an organization that would use it to save the lives of kids in need?”(545). Singer mentions the book Living High and Letting Die, by the New York University philosopher Peter Unger, discussing a peculiar scenario. Bob, the focus of the story is close to retirement and he has used the majority of his savings to invest on a Bugatti. The point of this story is to demonstrate how Bob chose to retrieve his car rather than save ...
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.
In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer is trying to argue that “the way people in relatively affluent countries react to a situation… cannot be justified; indeed,… 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”(Singer 230). Peter Singer provides striking examples to show the reader how realistic his arguments are. In this paper, I will briefly give a summary of Peter Singer’s argument and the assumptions that follow, adding personal opinions for or against Peter’s statements. I hope that within this paper, I am able to be clearly show you my thoughts in regards to Singer.
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 argues that if we have the ability to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything of similar moral importance, we ought to do it. He states that in a presentation at TED, that widespread deaths from starvation, diseases and many other death related issues, are still taking place all around the world but though the life expectancy has been getting better since 2011. Since Singer believes that poverty is bad, we are (related to what’s right and wrong) obligated to help the poor in poorer countries. He believes that we can sacrifice part of our salary without causing any complications to our life, especially comparably bad to other parts of the world. He points out that we are morally wrong if we spend unnecessary items, items that we do not need and instead of buying useless things, we can give money to charities which can benefit other society.
In Peter Singer’s article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” he discusses the moral dilemmas that shouldn’t really be dilemmas. He claims that if there is a possibility that you can prevent something bad from happening, without a significant sacrifice on our part, you ought to do it. Singer brings up many good points to support his claim. In the end, there is a flaw in his reasoning. There are certain situations where morals or laws must be broken for the greater good.
Singer believes that we have a moral obligation to help the global poor that is as strong as our obligation to save a child drowning in front of us. His theory states:
... 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.
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.
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.
This topic about helping poor people get out of poverty is a critical issue. Almost 800 million people across the globe, most of them children, live with hunger or malnutrition as a regular fact of life. They live in desperate poverty, which means they die younger than they should, struggle with hunger and disease, and live with little hope and less opportunity for a life of dignity (USCCB). Poverty poses a dramatic problem of justice; in its various forms and with its various effects, it is characterized by an unequal growth that does not recognize the "equal right of all people to take their seat ‘at the table of the common banquet' (Social Doctrine of the Church) ."
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.