More handpicked essays just for you.
Peter singer's solution to world poverty
Peter singer's solution to world poverty
Peter singer the solution to world poverty research
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Living in a third world country such as Jamaica gives you a firsthand experience on how much poverty has consumed the majority of the world. You’re driving along and you see a boy begging on the street asking a man in a mustang for some spare change. Should anyone be surprised if the man rolls up his window and ignore the poor boy? Would you have given the boy any of the spare change in the side of your car door? 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 ... ... middle of paper ... ...iquitous in the world is understandable; however, Singer leaves his audience with unanswered questions about what is moral and what isn’t. The article comes across as a bit confusing and assertive towards the audience at the end. I can only speak for myself in saying that Singer’s article begins to anger me, the need to understand why Singer believes that everyone should give away their surplus wealth they strive so hard to attain is mystifying. If Singer had not pushed his demands in asking for half a middle-class family’s income and stick to the affordable $200, the questions that each reader is searching to be answered would not be such a difficult task. Works Cited Singer, Peter. “The Singer Solution to World Poverty.” in The Allyn & Bacon Guide to Writing. John D. Ramage, John C. Bean, and June Johnson. 5th ed. New York: Longman, 2009. 545-49. Print.
The book deals with several sociological issues. It focuses on poverty, as well as s...
In order for her to make thousands of dollars she has to persuade a family about adopting a homeless nine year old boy. In the process she succeeds and successfully delivers the boy into his new family. She is then later on told about how the boy was too old to be adopted and will be killed for organ transplantation. As a consequence, Dora decides to take the boy back. Singer then explains, “In fact, an average family in the United states spends almost one-third of its income on things that are no more necessary to them than Dora’s new TV was to her” (2). Singer elaborates on the fact that we indeed spend so much of our money on things not essential to us. Singer also states, “Going out to nice restaurants, buying new clothes because the old ones are no longer stylish, vacationing at beach resorts - so much of our income is spent on things not essential to the preservation of our lives and health” (2). One might agree to Singer because he does state an important point on how most of us do spend our money on unnecessary things and instead should be given to charitable agencies. He believes that the money will save the life of children in need between life and
He continued to mention how Americas are greedy with their money and they can use it to save children’s lives instead of spending money on unnecessary things. Another story was mentioned about a guy named Bob. Bob had had a nice expensive car he had all his money invested into. One day it was parked on railroad tracks and a train was coming, Bob then saw a child also on the train tracks. He had a choice, to save the kid or to save his life investments. Bob had chosen to save his car in which he let the kid get hit. Therefore, only one kid was killed but there are even more kids dying across seas. Singer mentions many times throughout the article how to donate money to save lives. While also mentioning all the different organizations you can use to donate, and how much you should donate. Peter says that it only takes “$200 to save a child’s life. Singer also thinks that Americans should donate any extra money they have instead of going out to dinner or spending money on television’s. He explained that people should donate any income that they make that isn’t a necessity to
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 of the earliest topics in the film that I took note of was the ethics of certain matters, in a way that I had never considered before. The first, was the ethics of how we spend our money. An analogy was proposed by Peter Singer, who said he had asked many people this philosophical question in the past, and always gets the same answer. The question is, at its root, if you could save a child from drowning, with no risk to your own safety, but you would ruin your nice pair of shoes, would you do it? This is what I call a no-brainer. Nearly all would save the child, myself included. In turn, one would be out the cost of those nice shoes. However, Singer's point is that one could take the cost of those shoe...
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 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.
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
“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.
Singer, Peter. “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.” Current Issues and Enduring Questions. 8th ed. Eds. Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2008. 7-15. Print.
In the essay, "The Singer Solution to World Poverty", Singer uses pathos and an assertive tone to emphasize the dire moral issues plaguing the United States and to demonstrate to the audience that their money would be best spent helping others. Singer begins his essay with an allusion to the Brazilian film, Central Station, when he says, "He (a homeless boy) will be killed and his organs sold for transplantation" Singer uses his bold tone to bluntly state that an innocent boy, like an old car, will be used as spare parts. Since the boy was an innocent child, Singer evokes anger from the audience who resents Dora, the one who sold the boy, for her immoral decision to trade the boy's life for something as menial as a television set. The audience, in reaction to the emotional appeal and bold tone, find themselves wishing there was a way that they could help the boy and makes...
John Arthur, an American professor of philosophy stated: “Is [Richard] Watson correct that all life is of equal value? Did Adolf Hitler and Martin Luther King, for example, lead equally valuable lives? Clearly one did far more good, the other far more harm; who would deny that while King fought for people’s rights, Hitler violated them on a massive scale? Nor are moral virtues like courage, kindness, and trustworthiness equally distributed among people. So there are many important sense in which people are not, in fact, morally equal: Some lives are more valuable to others, and some people are just, generous, and courageous, whereas others are unjust and cowardly” (*insert year quote was made).
In addition, the author is sometimes being too forceful by telling the reader what to do. Since he uses such an emotional and forceful tone in the article, it is doubtful if Singer is successful at selling the audience on his point concerning this issue. He may have convinced many people to donate a particular amount of money for charity to poor countries, but his article is not effective enough to convince me. All human beings have the right to have luxury items even though many would argue that they are doing so at the expense of their morality.
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
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.