Explain Peter Singer’s argument that there is no morally significant difference between Bob, who decides to let a child die rather than sacrifice ...

717 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Altruism is selfless

Singer aims to establish charitable giving as a moral obligation of those who posses more money than that which is needed to meet basic living costs. He concocts a thought experiment with an apparent conclusion that strongly favours altruistic behaviour, and uses this to affirm his belief that everyone should give away absolutely everything that they can afford to. He relates the choice of not giving to charity as being comparable in moral wretchedness to the act of allowing a child to die in front of you, so as not to lose your prized, albeit unnecessary, luxury possessions. Singer proceeds, with the use of some statistics, to attempt to outline just how much the average American is capable of giving. He then finishes by addressing the most likely objections to his argument, such as the possible response that no one is obliged past their 'share' of contributions to others' needs, even to compensate where others fail their moral obligations. Singer creates the analogy of a man named Bob, whose prized Bugatti will ensure him a more than comfortable retirement one day. A modification of the infamous trolley problem, the circumstances of the thought experiment require Bob to decide between allowing a child to be killed by a train, or diverting the train so as to instead wreck his luxury car, saving the unknown child from any possible harm. If Bob is to choose his car over the child, it would be considered morally reprehensible. The life of any child is inherently more valuable that the car is. Singer argues that this choice, between allowing innocent children to die and sacrificing luxury items, is a choice that faces almost all Americans every day. He reasons that since many Americans live above poverty and spend excess money on ... ... middle of paper ... ... are given a broadly inclusive definition under Singer's argument, compose an in-ignorable chunk of the world economy. It is difficult to foresee how things would play out if the extreme altruism proposed by Singer became the norm. While the conclusion Singer produces appears to logically follow from his thought experiment, its appropriateness for actual application in the real world requires much greater justification. Nonetheless, if we hypothetically assume that the intended positive outcome will always be the result of our charity, Singer's argument still relies on several Utilitarian assumptions; namely that we consider the lives of strangers to be of equal value to the lives of our loved ones, and that we should regard the saving of a life as a greater good than marginal increases in the quality of life of a moderately healthy and financially secure individual.

Show More
Related

  • Analysis Of The Singer Solution To World Poverty

    1276 Words  | 3 Pages

    “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” by Peter Singer is a persuasive article trying to influence people to donate money to save children’s lives. Peter Singer stated, “Evolutionary psychologists tell us that human nature just isn’t sufficiently altruistic to make it plausible that many people will sacrifice so much for strangers… they would be wrong to draw moral conclusions to that fact”. First, Singer tells a story about a retired school teacher who doesn’t have extra money. Dora, the school teacher, is given a chance to make a thousand dollars by walking a homeless child to a house, in which she was given the address for. She then walks the child to the house, and then later Dora’s neighbors tell her that the child was probably killed

    Read More

  • Andrew Carnegie And Peter Singer

    1346 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Reevaluating Charity: A Radical Approach

    870 Words  | 2 Pages

    Throughout his essay, Singer argues that we must reject the common sense view of giving to charity. The common sense view of giving to charity is one that is supererogatory; it is not obligated for us

    Read More

  • Strong Response to Peter Singer’s: The Singer Solution to World Poverty

    1160 Words  | 3 Pages

    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 ...

    Read More

  • Examined Life, All That Heaven Allows

    870 Words  | 2 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • Peter Singer's Argument in Famine, Affluence and Morality

    1493 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Famine, Affluence, and Morality

    2018 Words  | 5 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • Singer Cullity

    1687 Words  | 4 Pages

    response to the Singer. Cullity argues that Singer’s conclusion, that we ought to help others in need so long as this does not cause any significant damage to ourselves, is severely demanding, as it is essentially arguing that we are morally obligated to help everybody in the world. The only way in which we would be able to justify not helping somebody who needed our help would be if doing so would put the person helping at significant risk. Cullity argues in his paper that Singer’s argument is asking too much of people when it claims that donating to aid agencies is a moral obligation and that not doing so would be immoral. His main way of doing so is by rejecting the Severe Demand.

    Read More

  • Peter Singer's Paper 'Famine, Affluence and Morality'

    1498 Words  | 3 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Peter Singer And Onora O Neill's Position On Famine Relief

    1016 Words  | 3 Pages

    Bentham, an act utilitarian, created a measurement called hedonic calculus that calculates if an action is wrong or right by determining factors like intensity and duration of pleasure. Singer strains on the importance of the act by the number of people affected from it. He believes that every human being is equal. Therefore, geographical and emotional closeness is irrelevant to moral responsibilities. He states that “death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad” and that if you disagree “read no further” because it would be hard to convince anyone otherwise (P. 231 Singer). He argues that if we can prevent bad things from occurring without “sacrificing anything of moral importance” it’s our moral obligation to act on it (P.231 Singer). What is not clear is as to how much we should give, as we should keep in mind that not everyone in the world gives aid to famine relief so we must take that into account. Singer then tries to make it easier on us by stating that instead of negotiating something of comparable ethical significance in his second premise, it can be of any moral significance. He also believes that if one is to ignore a duty to aid others then he or she is no different than an individual who acts wrong. This is because he believes that it is our moral responsibility to do good deeds and people dying is wrong

    Read More

  • Analysis of The Singer Solution to World Poverty by Peter Singer

    822 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Singers Solution to World Poverty

    1213 Words  | 3 Pages

    Singer’s argument may have swayed many people to donate their dispensable income to children in need despite the fact that it has many fundamental flaws. He argues that we should give away the majority of our earnings to charity. Since Singer wants the reader to donate such a large amount of money, the readers are given no choice but to contribute nothing whatsoever. His solution is not realistic and does not take into account the long-term financial impact this type of donation contribution system would have on a country’s economy.

    Read More

  • Difference Between Jan Narveson Vs Peter Singer

    1135 Words  | 3 Pages

    In this piece he makes it clear that nearly everyone has the ability to make a difference is others lives. dings”. Narveson, unlike Singer, thinks that our voluntary choices about giving are morally permissible, whether we choose to give or not. If you choose to sacrifice your luxuries for charity, then that’s fine (morally speaking), as long as you haven’t neglected your obligations with your family. In “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, the author Peter Singer argues that there is no reason why Americans don’t donate money to the needy when they can afford countless of luxury that are not essential to the preservation of their lives and health. In the case that you choose not to sacrifice for charity, then that’s fine too. As per Narveson 's position it’s up to us to help or feeding the hungry and whatever we decide is correct too. What Narveson does argue is that it would be wrong for others to force us to give, say, by taxing us and giving our money to charity. This claim does not contradict anything that Singer says in “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”. Nowhere in that article does Singer say that people should be forced to give. But for a utilitarian, such as Singer, there is no reason in principle why it would be wrong to force people to give. If the policy of forcing people to give maximizes utility, then it is ipso facto the right policy. On the other hand Narveson makes a distinction between

    Read More

  • Altruism: The Illusion of Self-Interest

    1154 Words  | 3 Pages

    This paper shows that altruism is a very complex issue and much more information could be introduced, following this would allow a greater look at the complexity of other views such as the religious or the philosophical side. Garrett Hardin’s ‘lifeboat ethics’ is a perfect example and proof of this paper, showing that we would rather let others gets killed instead of trying to help a

    Read More

  • Utilitarianism In John Singer's Peter Singer Solution To World Poverty

    1828 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

More about Explain Peter Singer’s argument that there is no morally significant difference between Bob, who decides to let a child die rather than sacrifice ...

Open Document