In recent discussion about helping the poor, one controversial issue has been whether to help or not to help. On one hand, some say that helping the poor is very simple and doesn’t take much. From this point of view, it is seen as selfish to not help the poor. On the other hand, however, others argue that by helping others you are in fact hurting yourself at the same time. In the words of Garrett Hardin, one of this view’s main proponents, “prosperity will only be satisfied by lifeboat ethics.” According to this view, we are not morally obligated to help other countries. In sum, then, the issue is whether to help poorer countries or not. My own view is that I feel morally obligated to help the poor. Though I concede that at some point too much help can in turn hurt our development as a leading country. The issue is important because, according to writer Peter Singer, 1.4 billion people are living in extreme poverty today. That number is outrageous and we need to help it decline. Touching on lifeboat ethics, “metaphorically each nation can be seen as a lifeboat full of comparatively rich people. In the ocean outside each lifeboat swim the poor of the world, who would like to get in, or at least to share some of the wealth”(328). The issue is what should the lifeboat passengers do? You can’t help all of the poor …show more content…
Without access to outside food the population in poorer countries drops and is “checked” by crop failures and famines. But access to outside food could be a problem because “if they can always draw on a world food bank in time of need, their populations can continue to grow unchecked, and so will their “need” for aid”(333). Poorer countries’ populations could surpass richer countries, then poorer countries will receive even more resources and give basically nothing, while the rich receive even less but give
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 involves 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.
In Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence and Morality,” Singer makes three claims about moral duty; that avoidable suffering is bad, that it is our moral obligation to help others in need, and that we should help those in suffering regardless of their distance to us or if others are in the same position as we are to help. First, I will elaborate on Singer’s arguments for each of these positions. Next, I will discuss two objections to Singer’s position, one that he debates in his writings and another that I examine on my own, and Singer’s responses to those objections. Then I will examine why Singer’s rebuttals to the objections were successful.
Often times, the middle and upper classes underestimate the amount of poverty left in our society. In “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Peter Singer reaches out to the lucrative to help the misfortune. Although Singer believes that, the wealthy has a responsibility in providing help to the less fortunate, Singer conducts theories in which he explains how we as Americans spend more on luxuries rather than necessities. If the wealthy are fortunate enough to go out to fancy meals, they should be able to provide food for a poor family or medicine for the children. The negative attributes outweigh the positive due to the lack of supporting detail from the positive in which helps us better understand that helping people is the right thing to do rather than sitting back and doing nothing but demands that Americans donate every cent of their extra money to help the poor. According to Singer, if we provide a foundation for the misfortune we will not only make the world a better place but we will feel a relief inside that world poverty will soon end. The argument singer gives has no supporting details in which he tries and persuade the wealthy to donate money to the poor without clear thoughts.
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.
Rich people, is a lifeboat floating at sea, with the world's poor swimming around it. Hardin claims that, since the lifeboats belonging to rich countries have a limited carrying capacity because of (not having enough of what’s needed), taking too many poor in is self-destructive, since the lifeboat will sink, so rich countries are under no (need and responsibility to do what’s right) to rescue more than a few "lucky ones." What’s more, since the population growth rate of poor countries is much higher than that of rich countries, and given that some poor countries depend on handouts to turn away/avoid frequent human serious problem, the continuous supply of aid by the rich to the poor will overwhelm the planet's resources, leading to "the total collapse of the whole system, producing a terrible event," if the population of the poor isn't kept in check by natural cycles of death. Therefore, rich countries are under no (need and responsibility to do what’s right) to help the poor.. In my own opinion, Hardin views in an economically stand point, the U.S. has spent billions of dollars in Foreign Aid which saved many lives. During the tsunami in the Philippines the U.S. was first to answer delivering food and many other various items spending $178 millions of dollars. It brought stability internally and helped in
Peter Singer states a strong opinion about how affluent people are morally obligated to give some of their time and money towards the less fortunate. He argues how certain countries
In The Cause Against Helping the Poor, Garrett Hardin argues that each nation must protect their own resources and leave others to fend for themselves. Perhaps the strongest argument that Hardin gives for this claim relies on the belief that helping the poor will only ruin our environment and hurt the future generation. Furthermore, we are justified in protecting ourselves, which makes no moral difference in protecting those who are closer to us. In this paper, I will argue that we have a general obligation to help those in need, but the obligation is stronger for those closest to us.
In the article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer argues that our conceptions on moral belief need to change. Specifically, He argues that giving to famine relief is not optional but a moral duty and failing to contribute money is immoral. As Singer puts it, “The way people in affluent countries react ... 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”(135). In other words Singer believes that unless you can find something wrong with the following argument you will have to drastically change your lifestyle and how you spend your money. Although some people might believe that his conclusion is too radical, Singer insists that it is the logical result of his argument. In sum, his view is that all affluent people should give much more to famine relief.
In the article, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Peter Singer expresses his displeasure with people not preventing bad things from happening, even when it is within their power. Spending money on buying extravagant goods instead of giving it to the needy seems to be a foreign concept to him. He questions how human beings can be so inhumane to ignore other’s sufferings. Singer is an utilitarian and believes in lending aid to the underprivileged. Through his paper, Singer argues that well-to-do people are morally obligated to help the impoverished. He also writes about the objections made on his viewpoints and responds to them with solutions.
What, if any, is our moral duty to help those less fortunate? In Famine, Affluence and Morality (1972), Peter Singer’s so-called ‘weaker’ argument for helping those in need raises many objections. This essay will demonstrate that whilst we may agree with these objections, they do not provide sufficient moral justification to reject his philosophy. **Outline arguments a little
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.
It is not easy to always practice love and compassion to everyone. This is why similarly to Miller, I believe it is our human nature to favour those we are closest to, such as family and friends. We create special bonds and relationships with particular people and they become our main concern. These relationships may cause us to become self driven. However, this does not change the fact that we are all human beings and hold the same value as one another. We must continuously remind ourselves that others have it worse off, and that we have the means to help them. So why would we choose not to? It is important to help those in need, they do not deserve anything less than wealthier nations do. Therefore, wealthier nations should be obligated to dedicate a percentage of their resources and income to ensuring the wellbeing of individuals in other
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.
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.
Poverty is in our own backyard. Poverty isn’t turning around a globe and looking toward third world countries for an example. Poverty is everywhere. Poverty is the children down the street who go to bed hungry each night filled only with emptiness. Poverty is my neighbor who had her heat shut off this past winter. However I believe that poverty is preventable.