Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
How to end poverty globally
Health care is a human right
How to end poverty globally
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: How to end poverty globally
Did you have a cup of coffee today? Or maybe you went shopping for that new shirt for the summer? Your money could be going to a better cause. Of the 7.15 billion people on Earth today, approximately 2.4 billion people live on less than two dollars and day, and 1.4 billion people live on less than $1.25 a day. More than eight-hundred people go to bed hungry, and more than one million people do not have access to clean drinking water. The amazing stat is that over eighteen thousand children die per day from diseases that are preventable. Kids die from a multitude of cause such as diarrhea, malaria, malnutrition, and disease. (Abbate, Global Poverty, 2014) Each could be prevented with the money you spent on that nonessential item for yourself. Most people do not seem to do this because of the out of sight out of mind principle. Since we never get to see how our aid actually helps those across the world, individuals are less inclined to help. In his article ,“The Singer Solution to World Poverty” (Landau, 2012) Peter Singer provides a unique argument in that he believes that we are no different than a murderer because we had the capability to stop it and didn’t do so. We have the ability to give what we essentially waste to maximize the happiness of another person and reduce poverty around the world. There are many charities out there, that can take the little money that we have or need to give, and can distribute it to help a magnitude of people worldwide. In this paper, I am arguing that we should give what money we can to relief and aid organizations in order to reduce global poverty because it is our duty to maximize the happiness around us.
In his article Singer makes a great argument that stems from Act utilitarianism. Singer...
... middle of paper ...
...ns. Overall global poverty is an issue with no clear answer. Each day, millions of people die and go to bed hungry while millions of others spend money on nonessential items. If everyone can share some type of monetary donation to relief organizations, we can maximize the happiness of the poor around the world, hopefully eradicating global poverty.
Works Cited
Abbate, Cheryl. "Global Poverty." Philosophy 2310. Marquette University. David A Straz Jr. Hall , Milwaukee, Wi. 23 April 2014. Class lecture/PowerPoint
Abbate, Cheryl. "Utilitarianism." Philosophy 2310. Marquette University. David A Straz Jr. Hall , Milwaukee, Wi. 03 March 2014. Class lecture/PowerPoint
Landau, Russ. "The Singer Solution to World Poverty By: Peter Singer." The ethical life: fundamental readings in ethics and moral problems. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. 229-236. Print.
“The Singer Solution to Poverty” by Peter Singer and “Facing Famine” by Tom Haines, are both dealing with the same issues but the only difference between the two authors are that they use different tactics in which to address the problem and also attempt to get assistance from others. Although both authors intentions are the same, Haines has a much better strategy of getting the sympathy attention from his audience rather than making them feel guilty for living an average life. The author Peter Singer argues that there is no reason why Americans can’t donate money if they are able to afford luxurious material/products that are not essential to their lives and health. Singer 's solution is for Americans to stop using their money on things that
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
According to Peter Singer, we as a society must adopt a more radical approach with regards to donating to charity and rejecting the common sense view. In the essay Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Singer argues that we have a strong moral obligation to give to charity, and to give more than we normally do. Critics against Singer have argued that being charitable is dependent on multiple factors and adopting a more revisionary approach to charity is more difficult than Singer suggests; we are not morally obliged to donate to charity to that extent.
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 imperfection of Singer’s solution to end world poverty exceeds its convenience in the average American. While the wealthy is targeted and responsible for the lack of donations to the less fortunate, singer gives poor supporting details in why the wealthy should donate a large portion of their wealth to only help a few individuals for a certain period of time.
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 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:
“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.
Theories of global distributive justice address the following sorts of questions. Should we feel morally concerned about the large gap between the developing countries and the developed countries? What duty do us citizens have to provide assistance to the global poor? And what scale should we take the duties to?
Peter Singer is an Australian philosopher whose solution to world poverty is overwhelmingly known globally. He has an excellent idea that is keenly and carefully looked into by many across the world. Peter clearly understands that the world poverty solution can only be addressed and solved if individuals from rich countries are willing and are in a position to offer their luxurious wealth to the needy. He, however, asserts that it is not necessary to spend money on assets like television, cars, movies, expensive meals, and brand new clothes as well (singer, 223).
Most people feel that they should help the needy in some way or another. The problem is how to help them. This problem generally arises when there is a person sitting on the side of the road in battered clothes with a cardboard sign asking for some form of help, almost always in the form of money. Yet something makes the giver uneasy. What will they do with this money? Do they need this money? Will it really help them? The truth of the matter is, it won't. However, there are things that can be done to help the needy. Giving money to a reliable foundation will help the helpless, something that transferring money from a pocket to a man's tin can will never do.
Saint Augustine once said, “Find out how much God has given you and from it take what you need; the remainder is needed by others.” (Augustine). Augustine's belief that it is the duty of the individual to assist those less fortunate than themselves is expressed in the essay "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" by Peter Singer. Singer shares his conviction that those living in luxury should support those struggling to survive in poverty. Singer adopts the persona of a sage utilitarian philosopher who judges the morality of actions based on the consequences that are wrought by them. Singer utilizes powerful pathos, rhetorical questions, ethos, and a bold tone which contributes to his purpose of persuading his intended audience of American consumers to live only on necessity rather than luxury as well as to donate their discretionary income to the impoverished.
Mill, J. S., Bentham, J., & Ryan, A. (1987). Utilitarianism and other essays. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.
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.
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.