Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Child hunger in america
What is the defernce between subjective,absoluty poverty and relative poverty
Effect of social inequality
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Child hunger in america
Rich v. Poor
Take a moment and picture a child half naked in the streets. His body has been harshly neglected. Little to no calf muscles exist. His ribs are plainly countable. One, two, three up his left side. You can do the same to his right. Malnutrition only vaguely begins to describe his condition. The worst of anorexia doesn’t even compare to this child’s inhumane state. As for shelter, he lives in a dilapidated hut. Food is a luxury, as the child may be fed only three or four times a week. He’s expected to die by the age of five due to severe malnutrition and disease. This is the grim portrait of an Ethiopian child in absolute poverty. His life doesn’t allow for the basic essentials of food, shelter, or clothing.
In today’s world poverty is not only viewed in terms of average income/wealth, but as the lower end of distribution regarding income, education, health accessibility, nutrition, productivity, participation in politics, etc. Thus, poverty is defined as the “economic condition in which people lack sufficient income to obtain certain minimal levels of health services, food, housing, clothing, and education generally recognized as necessary to ensure an adequate standard of living” (Funk & Wagnall 1). Adequate, however, depends on the standard of living for each country.
There are two different types of poverty today—relative and absolute. Nearly half of a billion people live in relative poverty—“meaning that some citizens are poor, relative to the wealth enjoyed by their neighbors” (Singer 218). To put these figures in terms one can relate to, it’s estimated that about 10% of human life resides in relative poverty. This is a substantial amount, but their condition is quite well ...
... middle of paper ...
...ay, “prevent something very bad from happening, without [thereby] sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance…” (Singer 229), and we should.
Works Cited
* Hardin, Garret. “Living on a Lifeboat.” Contemporary Moral Problems. American Institute of Biological Sciences, 1974: 246-257.
* “Poverty.” Funk & Wagnall’s New Encyclopedia. 1992: 1-2.
* Quadrini, Vincenzo.; Ríos-Rull, José-Víctor. “Understanding the U.S. Distribution of Wealth.” http://newfirstsearch.oclc.org
* Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Quarterly Review v. 21 no2. Spring. 1997: 22-36.
* Singer, Peter. “Rich and Poor.” Practical Ethics. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993: 218-246.
* Speth, James Gustave. “The Plight of the Poor: The Unites States Must Increase Development Aid.” Foreign Affairs v. 78 no3. May/June. 1999: 1-3.
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.
The objection says that Singer’s analyses of moral duty conflicts with society’s current outlook on charity, which views it as not an obligation but a personal choice, where those who choose to give are praised for their philanthropy but those who choose not to give are not condemned (236). Singer retorts this objection by saying that we as a society need to essentially change our perspective of charity (236). What Singer means by this is that we need to drastically revise our ideas of what a moral duty is because, in agreement with Singer’s premise that we are morally obligated to help those who are suffering if it is within our power to do so without causing something equally as bad as the suffering to happen (231), charity should be considered as our moral responsibility and a mandatory duty for society
The second premise (P2) states The challenge here does not lie in the prevention of something bad since this would seem rather uncontroversial given our acceptance of P1. But, the sacrifice clause requires clarification before proceeding. It means, from a moral point of view, c...
Peter Singer’s arguments in Animal Liberation have often been misunderstood. The most mutual, and important, misunderstanding among professional thinkers consists in the belief that the moral argument advanced by Animal Liberation is created on utilitarianism, besides not, as is in fact the situation, on the belief of no maleficence. Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation is surely one of the most persuasive, powerful and efficient works of applied integrities ever printed. Since the publication of the first edition in April 5, 1973, Singer’s work has been spoken, and its main theses enthusiastically argued by others. In the essay Singer’s tone was very rational and patient,
Peter Singer organizes his arguments into an outline form allowing a reader to take individual thoughts, adding them together giving a “big picture.” Within the first few pages, Singer shares two guiding assumptions in regards to his argument to which I stated above. The first assumption states “that suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad” (231). Singer steps away from the typical writing style; he states the assumption yet he does not give a personal comment in regards to the assumption. He chooses to do so because the assumption itself is surely uncontroversial; most people would agree, but to those who don’t agree, there are so many possibilities at which to arrive to this assumption that, after all, if they don’t yet comprehend its truth, it would be hard to convince them of its accuracy. Speaking for myself, if I encountered an individual that does not agree to the assumption that death by avoidable causes is bad; I would not hesitate to declare them of being heartless. There are many cases, whether across oceans on foreign land or areas to which we live, where people are dying because of inescapable, unfortunate reasons. Within such cases, even a possible little voice in the back of the head can lead one to wonder who has the responsibility of helping those who are enduring such unnecessary deaths. This sense of wonder leads us to Singer’s second assumption; “if it is in our power to prevent something from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it” (231). To better clarify what this assumption is looking for, Singer points out that “It requires u...
Shafer-Landau, R. (2013) Ethical Theory: An Anthology (Second Edition). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Shafer-Landau, Russ. The Ethical Life: Fundamental Readings in Ethics and Moral Problems. New York: Oxford UP, 2010. Print.
Hardin presents “lifeboat ethics” which is a metaphor for the gaps between the rich and the poor. Imagine a lifeboat: only a fifty people can fit inside. The people in the boat are the rich while the surrounding sea represents the poor people. The poor being placed in the sea represents them drowning in poverty. About ten more people could possibly fit into the lifeboat, making the maximum capacity of the boat sixty, ignoring the safety factor
Moral obligation is a controversial matter. We currently live in a “world of plenty”, however, the number of human beings dying or suffering from hunger, malnutrition or disease is staggering. In this essay, I am going to examine the arguments for and against moral obligation to helping the poor and starving, and in particular I will take into account Singer’s opinions on the matter.
He begins his argument with the fact that it is easier to avoid killing someone than to fail to save someone life. To begin his discussion of whether we have an obligation to assist, Singer formally outlines his argument into three premises. The first premise states, “if we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable significance, we ought to do it” (200). The second premise briefly states that absolute poverty is bad, and the third premise states there is some preventable absolute poverty without sacrificing anything of significance. Therefore, Singer concludes we ought to prevent some absolute poverty. To illustrate his principle, Singer presents a hypothetical example of if you were walking somewhere and saw a small child drowning in a shallow pond. You should be obligated to help save the child’s life, even if it means you will get your jeans dirty. In Singer’s terms, your jeans are not morally significant compared to the child losing their life; therefore, concluding you should save the
There are many rich and poor people in the world today, in our own country and in others. We have classified by how much they can afford and they are put into a class system. It’s hard for everyone in a country to be equal in the sense of how much money they make. Adriana Delgado says, “The vast differences between the rich and the poor, the powerful and the powerless, will be the catalyst for the best intentions to be rewarded with ungratefulness and contempt, creating resentment and mistrust between the classes.” there is always going to be problems between the rich and poor, because one sometimes is held higher than the
Poverty is an undeniable problem in America. In 2014, 14.8 percent of the United States was in poverty (“Hunger and Poverty Fact Sheet”). There are more people in the United States than it seems that do not have their basic necessities. In an
Poverty is generally defined as a state of deprivation in well-being. The conventional perspective connects well-being basically to control over commodities, so the poor are individuals who do not have sufficient income or consumption to place them above some adequate bare minimum threshold (Lyman et al, 2004). Poverty is also tied to a particular type of consumption, for instance people may be considered health poor, house poor or food poor. The poverty dimensions can often be determined directly. For instance it can be measured by assessing malnutrition or levels of literacy (Alla...
To begin, there are two main types of poverty in the world, non-income and income poverty (ZPRP). Non Income Poverty is when people may have money, but only a little to keep themselves alive (ZPRP). They don’t have the money to afford physical services and social events such as schooling, work, medicines, health care, sanitation, and transportation (ZPRP). The best way to condense the cause of non-income poverty is to make sure that individuals have access to inexpensive and exceptional social services, that they feel safe when in their homes and that they have family and friends to protect them when needed (ZPRP). Income poverty is when people are living on less than 1 dollar a day, which is far from the normal amount a family can survive on (ZPRP). They tend to not have fresh food and water, medicine, live in poor houses, sometimes no houses, and have dirty and ragged clothes (ZPRP). Just as there are many types of poverty, there are many effects to it to.
Poverty is an issue dealt with throughout the world, but we are not all aware of its conditions. Poverty is a very serious problem around the world. Poverty is defined as the equality of poorness and impoverishment -- (the state of having little or no money and few or no material possessions). A question to ask ourselves is: “Should poverty be defined strictly in terms of monetary income, as opposed to some qualitative formula which takes into consideration styles of life as well as material possessions?” (Sheppard 13) Because there are so many different ways we can express the term poverty, maybe there should be a certain way we can determine poverty worldwide?