Peter Singer Famine Analysis

1391 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Peter singer the singer solution to world poverty

Leila Lencina
Professor Rogerson
PHI 2600
10 November 2015
The Solution to World Hunger
During the majority of the 20th century, philosophers concentrated on questions about ethical theories. It wasn’t until after 1970, that “applied ethics” was given attention. Peter Singer was one of the best-known writers and argued for the solution to world hunger as well as speciesism. Famine has been around for centuries and as a utilitarian, Singer argued that, “it is indefensible for affluent people to spend money on luxuries while the less fortunate are starving”. (Rachels, pg.147) Most of us living in the United States worry about gaining luxuries and success rather than thinking of the unfortunate people in third world countries that can’t even …show more content…

I don’t think of the starving children as I’m shopping for a new pair of jeans or shoes. After reading Singer’s article, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” I understand how remotely “immoral” not contributing to the solution of world hunger is if it is in our ability to do so, the importance of marginal utility, and the effects of this topic in Ethics.
In his article Singer suggests, “If we can prevent something bad from happening…without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, than we ought to do so.” (Rachels, pg. 147) By this, he means “without causing anything considerably bad from happening, or doing something that is wrong in itself, or failing to promote some moral good, comparable in significance to the bad thing we can prevent”. (Singer) Suppose for example I want …show more content…

As a utilitarian, Singer proposed many ideologies that were aimed to increase the happiness of the collective group. Singer’s proposition on famine relief is applicable to equality. His solution to famine relief would enable people that suffer from starvation to live a life equal to ours. Although it may not be individually fair for the people with “luxuries”, it would mean equality for the unfortunate people. This would decrease the number of deaths and it would increase their happiness. Although a typical American may feel angered and might scream, “This is unfair!” Singer would tell him, “Who cares if you think this is unfair?” The new $200 shoes you wanted to buy are not of equal importance compared to saving the lives of millions. Ethics is a set of moral codes all of us should obey in order to live in a peaceful society. In today’s society, we like to think that “all lives are equal” However, there is proof that this is non-existent. We’ve been fighting for equality for many centuries- equality for women, African Americans, homosexuals, those that are transgender, and we are still struggling today to fight for equality for undocumented students and their parents. The list could go on and on. Singer’s topic promotes equality, which would prevent many people from dying. Overall, Singer’s intentions are good and he’s trying to show us how we should morally behave. Although

Show More
Related

  • Peter Singer Moral Obligation

    1127 Words  | 3 Pages

    Singer’s utilitarian theory points out his main arguments for his statement “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” (375). He supports this by suggesting that were are morally obligated to prevent bad no matter the “proximity or distance” , “the number of other people who, in respect to that evil, are in the same situation we are” and that we ought to prevent hunger by sacrificing only their luxuries, which are of lesser moral importance (378). This meaning that we shouldn’t limit our aide to only those that we can see or that we know because morally there is no different between our obligation to them and our obligation to those overseas. Also, we should limit our aide to what we think ...

    Read More

  • 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

  • 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

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

    1493 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...themselves. By adding further conditions or exceptions we could address specific objections and create more narrowly defined obligations. Further modifications of PP’ would not generally eliminate obligations, but it would allow choices to be made. In particular, for the affluent, doing nothing remains off limits so they would still be required to do what they can to alleviate suffering in places where they are in agreement that help is warranted. This derivation from the original argument plausibly supports the basic argument made by Singer that we ought to do everything in our power to help those in need so long as we need not sacrifice anything significant.

    Read More

  • Singer Cullity

    1687 Words  | 4 Pages

    response to 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 to do so would be immoral. His main way of doing so is by rejecting the Severe Demand. The Severe Demand according to Cullity can be defined as:

    Read More

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

    1498 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    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

  • Morality of Giving

    1069 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Famine Relief

    1822 Words  | 4 Pages

    Famine, Affluence, and Morality; Singer suggested, “we should prevent bad occurrences unless, to do so, we had to sacrifice something morally significant” (C&M, 827). However, different philosophers and writers have criticized his view and the general idea to help the poor.

    Read More

  • Argumentative Summary On The Famine In Africa

    1072 Words  | 3 Pages

    After recently watching a PBS special on the refugees and famine that can be found across the continent of Africa, Rachel, a social justice major, Kevin, an economics and business major, and myself find ourselves discussing the opinions of Peter Singer and John Arthur about what should be done about the famine in Africa. Rachel agrees with Singer and the idea that we are morally obligated to donate all the money we spend on luxuries to famine relief instead. However, Kevin agrees with Arthur and believes Singer is not correct. They are both trying their best to convince me which side to agree with.

    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

  • Compare And Contrast Lifeboat Ethics And A Modest Proposal

    672 Words  | 2 Pages

    One issue that we discussed in “Lifeboat Ethics” and in “A Modest Proposal” is whether or not the rich should help the poor and if the poor can contribute anything to society. Garrett Hardin and Jonathan Swift have different views on whether or not people should help the impecunious. Hardin, who has only been rich and never been poor, believes the starving don’t deserve help because it’s their fault that they are poor and that they are a waste rather than view them as assets. Swift, who has been rich and poor, believes that the poor can be salvageable and that the poor have a better chance at improving themselves.

    Read More

  • World Hunger And Utilitarianism

    1808 Words  | 4 Pages

    But another very large portion of individuals like Peter Singer who also use the utilitarian way of thinking arrive at the conclusion that we should alleviate world hunger because it would increase the aggregate happiness in the world(866). Peter Singer uses the drowning child analogy to justify his position. He argues that if a person sees a child that’s drawing, and that person is capable of saving the child, that person is obligated to do so(866). In this situation the outcome is that the child is obviously happy that someone saved him, the person who saved the child is slightly less happy because his clothes were ruined, but nevertheless both are alive and well. Singer goes on to explain that we should apply this sort of thinking when it comes to world hunger, He says that if our situation allows us to help those in need, we are obligated to do so.(866) Singer and other individuals with the same understanding of the situation are basing their argument on the principle of utility, which essentially says that our actions should produce the greatest good for the greatest number (Mill, 752). The principle of utility is the only thing that matters when it comes to Utilitarianism, an action is right if it ends

    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

More about Peter Singer Famine Analysis

Open Document