Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Poverty impact on child development
Effects of poverty on human development in developing countries
Poverty impact on child development
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Poverty impact on child development
Money is what makes the world go around. We work for money. We gain from spending money. We live because of money. However, some of us have more than others. What should we do with the excess money we have? Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics, believes that the “money you’re spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away.” He believes that people should donate to overseas aid organizations, so they can recognize the urgent need for food and medicine in many parts of the world. To donate gives much benefits to the donor and the donee, but sometimes, donating has its limits. Personally, donating overseas is a blessing, but donations should be given to those within our people.
On the one hand, donating is a grateful thing. It allows us to recognize the blessings we have and recognize the struggles that others may have. Some Americans have a plethora of luxuries. A classic example of this would be Jay Gatsby. Jay Gatsby, a billionaire, was a character from the novel The Great Gatsby. He did not donate his money for the greater good. He spent it all for an extraordinary mansion and for over-the-top parties. Nevertheless, this is not the real world. Our world consists of materialistic things. Do we all really need several TVs, multiple smart phones, and numerous computers? There are families and people in the world who cannot afford basic food, shoes, clothes, shelters, and health care. The least that we can do is to donate a few gently used clothing and shoes, non-perishable food, and health necessities. Giving is not only a moment of realization; it gives us a sense of humanity. We all have a part in us that does something good. Imagine a feeling of genuine happiness because you just gave a little boy in Nicaragua a ...
... middle of paper ...
...om the people walking by. Every city has its struggles. The city I live nearby, Milwaukee, is considered one of the poorest cities. Although the circumstance between the homelessness here and homelessness across the world are different, they still both struggle. We can do something for the people living near us. We do not have to just donate; we can take action. We can volunteer at a local soup kitchen. We can raise awareness, and we can take a stand for change. Helping is a blessing, so why don’t we help the ones living within our own city?
Peter Singer is bringing out a sincere message. We all have the goodness to aid someone in need. Donating may have its weaknesses. Nonetheless, the investment can be made every so often. This investment can help not only to those struggling across the ocean, but this investment can help those who are struggling across the city.
To describe Peter Singer’s main argument for why we have an obligation to help people in need, I will
The Australian philosopher Peter Singer, believes that when we refuse to help end world hunger, we become murders. He believes that it is are moral obligation as Americans who live comfortable lives, to help “the worlds poor” (Singer 1). It is wrong to continue to live a luxuries life, when we know that others are fighting for the mere chance to survive. In Peter Singer’s “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” he compares us Americans to two fictitious characters Dora and Bob, due to the fact that we as Dora and Bob chose luxuries over the chance to help people suffering from life-threatening poverty.
Peter Unger attempts to persuade his audience into believing that it is their moral obligation to do anything and everything in their powers to reduce the suffering in the world caused by poverty. He takes a utilitarian approach to the poverty question by arguing that we should focus on how to save the most people by using donations as efficiently as possible. This means that we must not only take into consideration number of lives saved but also the amount of good each of those lives may do.
Conversely, in the case of preventing the death of a child in a third world country by donating to a charity, you are more likely prolonging a life for a short period of time rather than truly saving it. Donating money that will be put towards, for example, a malaria net, may prevent someone from passing away due to one illness but it will not give them an education and it will not save them from famine or distress. The donation will only save people in great poverty from one of their many struggles. In the biography “Mountains Beyond Mountains,” Tracy Kidder discusses Paul Farmer’s establishment of the nonprofit, Partners in Health, that obtains donations to its charitable cause from large companies and organizations. These companies and organizations are well-established foundations that can give an amount of money great enough to potentially make a difference and save lives through health care. Nonetheless, even with these great amounts of money, one of Farmer’s patients, John, gets all the medical help possible yet dies anyway. This saddening story exemplifies the point that when donating you cannot guarantee that a life will be saved. The best medical care possible could not save John, so even the best help we can give through charity may not save the people in need. There are many struggles in third-world countries
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...
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...
Homeless individuals are known for taking hand outs and they prefer to plead for money rather than to go work for it. People assume most of the the money that is given to homeless people they spend it on drugs and alcohol because of the fact that many homeless people have drug and alcohol addictions. It is not uncommon to come across homeless youth and older homeless population that are known to abuse substances like drugs and alcohol. Because of the fact that homeless people have substance abuse problems, they tend face illnesses and infections. Many hard working Americans ask themselves “why don’t homeless people just get jobs?” The assumption is they are just lazy and unmotivated. Homeless people choose to live the life they live. Everyone goes through problems but not all people take the path homeless people do. The problems homeless people face is not an excuse for them to be helped and maintained by other hard working people. Although homelessness might be a choice to some, no one knows the hardships these people have gone through. Some assume these people are just lazy but in reality a lot of these homeless people have jobs of their own, they just can’t afford housing and a decent life. Everyone has their own opinion on homeless people, but that does not change the fact that one should still serve the homeless. Not because homeless people need help but because we are
... are given a broadly inclusive definition under Singer's argument, compose an in-ignorable chunk of the world economy. It is difficult to foresee how things would play out if the extreme altruism proposed by Singer became the norm. While the conclusion Singer produces appears to logically follow from his thought experiment, its appropriateness for actual application in the real world requires much greater justification. Nonetheless, if we hypothetically assume that the intended positive outcome will always be the result of our charity, Singer's argument still relies on several Utilitarian assumptions; namely that we consider the lives of strangers to be of equal value to the lives of our loved ones, and that we should regard the saving of a life as a greater good than marginal increases in the quality of life of a moderately healthy and financially secure individual.
The liberal side of me does understand that when money is involved people do tend to get a bit rigid due to obvious reasons, Its hard earned money and is ‘technically’ of utmost importance to our survival in today’s world. But the central idea is to help faraway strangers in need with no morally significant cost. We as members of the society shouldn’t forget our responsibilities and duties and should thus do what is maximally efficacious. Since there isn’t a lot that donating to someone in need takes from us, we should definitely do it.
...asonable dynamics and supports them with such enthusiasm. The last few paragraphs of Singer’s proposal started to steer me into a different direction in understanding his drastic approach to solve world hunger. Although Singer points out that there will always be another child in need and I can understand donating the $200, I couldn’t comprehend why all Americans should donate even a larger sum of money to these organizations. Singer couldn’t give a thorough explanation as to why we should be giving all of our hard earned money to organizations when a generous donation has already occurred. A student in class brought up an interesting question: “ What if we donate too much?” My question is, is there such a thing as donating too much money? The only way one can come to a resolution in such a matter would be to start giving and then we can worry about when to stop.
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.
I end this essay by saying, it can be said that there are a few utilitarian individuals who would disagree with the stance that Peter Singer has taken based on the fact that individuals and other bodies cannot be expected to give more than they able to. Despite comparing their generosity with other funds it should be noted that it is these same investments that are more likely to provide the financial stability for them to continue their generous donations. A change in the individual mindset will also take time to accomplish and thus cannot be expected to take effect overnight.
Are we as a society more concerned with profiting from people’s misfortunes than making them well? Can one readily identify a homeless person by looking at them? How do we account for the homeless? Do we care to know when a homeless person has died? Is it enough for us to offer housing? The majority of us are familiar with that old adage “an ounce of protection is worth a pound of cure.” If (Ostroff, J 2015) calculations are correct and we can cure homelessness for an extra $46 a year why aren’t we? What is hindering us from taking action? These are hard questions, to answer when with the harsh reality of homelessness in “the most livable city in the world.”
I watch how the US sends billions of dollars to other countries to stomp out hunger and other foreign aid around the world. Although, right here in this country people are homeless and hungry. I watch people come to tears when we see tragedy, hunger, and homelessness in these other countries, but walk right past a homeless person in the street just like the individual doesn’t exist. I ask the question, why can’t we end homelessness and hunger right here in our country first? We can’t say we don’t have the resources to do so; it just seems like we don’t want to. Why can’t every man, woman, and child –in this country- have a roof over their head and a meal on their
One shouldn't have to persuade another to help out another human; why would you give up on your own kind? We shouldn't turn a blind eye on the fact that people die of starvation every single day, while we fill our stomachs with unnecessary fares. This is truly sickening, the fact that while billions of people live in luxury, we have millions living in poverty. While some worry about what they should wear to a party, others worry about whether they’ll see the light of day tomorrow. We should be the shoulder they lean on during this tough time. We should be there for our own kind when they need some support. This is why we should donate to them. Some food, couple articles of clothing, and a blanket or two could go a long way for a person living on the streets. This is the reason why we should help the