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
In the paper “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” Peter Singer defends the idea that is our moral duty to help others in need. Since there are other people in the world that are suffering and we our in a position to give, we are obligated to help create change in the world . In this paper I will explain Peter Singer’s view about how it is our moral duty to help those who are suffering in the world. Then I will present an implication of Peter Singer claim that implies how we are obligated to give upon to others that are suffering. I will then explain an argurment to provide a reason of why someone should support Peter Singer principle. Carried to a logical conclusion, Peter Singer aruement that his principle is clearly obligatory than superagory. I will consider the two actions that Peter Singer gives to distinguish duty versues chariy and argue that his principle should e consider a superagoty action. Since his
During the early 1970s, consistent poverty and social unrest flowed throughout Bengal, which caused suffering for millions of refugees. As a result, India begged for emergency funds from different countries to help relieve the famine; however, only a few countries decided to contribute. This leads Singer to state, “What are the moral implications of a situation like this? In what follows, I shall argue that the way people in relatively affluent coun-tries react to a situation like that in Bengal cannot be justified; indeed, the whole way we look at moral issues-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).” Here, Singer is questioning the morals of affluent countries. Are they right? Well, according to Singer they are not because they are not morally right. Singer believes that “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 (Singer
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’s argument and viewpoint in the Ethics of Assistance proposes the argument of moral obligation in which he states that, “Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical attention are very bad things, and if we can prevent very bad things from happening, without sacrificing something of comparable moral value, then we are morally required to do it”. He claims that the concept of moral obligation should be revised and that we are obligated to help others in need, sacrificing something with any moral value. Although there are a few objections and exceptions to his argument, Peter Singer’s viewpoint on moral obligation is sensible, which everyone is obligated to prevent bad things from happening even though sacrifices of equivalent or in more value are in expense.
According to Singer, most individuals choose option B, which is a moral failing in itself. But choosing to donate the money to a famine relief organization would not be a charitable or generous act. Singer takes an absolute stance on this issue: “Nor is it the kind of act which philosophers and theologians have called `supererogatory '---an act which it would be good to do, but not wrong not to do. On the contrary, we ought to give the money away, and it is wrong not do so ' ' (235). Here is the argument he makes for this claim:
In his 1972 essay “Famine, Affluence, and Poverty”, Peter Singer tackles what seems on the surface to be a fairly simple debacle. He opens his essay by discussing the lack of food, shelter, and medical care in East Bengal. It is a given that every human deserves, in the very least, food, a place to sleep, and basic medical care. Singer claims that the problems involving poverty around the world is not an inevitable problem. He alleges that if we all pitched in what we can, these problems could be abolished. But unfortunately many people do not want to give up what they have for the sake of others. For these people, Singer put forth his seemingly obvious argument. It goes as follows:
“Famine, Affluence, and Morality” is a piece written by a moral philosopher, Peter Singer, who places a challenge to 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 from his work, as well as possible objections.
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.
Based off our agreement of this assumption, Singer moves on to the second part of his argument to say that if we are fortunate enough to have our basic needs for life fulfilled, then it is our moral obligation to help those who are not as fortunate as long as helping does not result in something happening that is equally as “bad,” which he defines as anything morally wrong or not promoting of moral goodness (231). For the third part of his argument, Singer points out that since it is now within our power to help people from all over the world, we have a moral obligation to give them our aid regardless of their distance from us (232). Because of our modern technologies, we
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.
Singer starts with the base of assumption that suffering and death from lack of the essentials of food, water, shelter, and proper medical assistance are bad. I find no problem with accepting this assumption as it is consistent with most widely accepted moral theories. Singer continues by stating “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”(Singer, Pg.231). Like his first statement, this one is easy to swallow. No moral code, save for maybe ethical egoism or nihilism, would attempt to refute either of his premises. His final conclusion is that if it is in our power to stop suffering and death from lack of the essentials, without sacrificing anything of comparable moral worth, we are morally obligated to do so. This essentially removes the current definition of charity, making giving money to famine relief, not a supererogatory act, but a moral duty of all people who have the ability to do so. Singer admits that this would drastically change the way people live their lives. Instead of living with any disposable income, people would be giving money to those who are living under bad or unsurvivable conditions. But wi...
The strong principle is this “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” (136). Singer’s point with this principle is that we are obliged to limit moral wrong, as in this case from famine, in anyway not morally wrong until that point at which by giving any more we cause as much suffering to ourselves as the amount of suffering we relieve. This principle, Singer thinks, is almost as uncontroversial as his assumption, of that I would say I disagree because, as I will show it doesn’t take into account the right to your
Richard Miller finds Singer’s conclusion unrealistically demanding. He approaches the problem differently and claims that we should instead accept the Principle of Sympathy. According to Miller’s Principle, what morality directly demands is a sufficiently strong concern towards neediness. One’s disposition to help the needy is “sufficiently strong” if expressing greater concern would “impose a significant risk of worsening one’s life” . The Principle of Sympathy differs from Singer’s Principle of Sacrifice mainly in two ways. First, the Principle of Sympathy is a moral code that concerns more with an agent’s disposition to give rather than the amount of money he end...
Singer presents his argument specifically in terms of famine relief and, although it has broader applicability, the discussion mostly falls under this specific topic. Thus, he conforms his argument around aspects relevant to famine and/or poverty when laying out his three core premises.