More handpicked essays just for you.
Where does peter singer show utilitarianism in the singer solution to world poverty
Where does peter singer show utilitarianism in the singer solution to world poverty
Where does peter singer show utilitarianism in the singer solution to world poverty
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In The Life You Can Save, Peter Singer presents the world-wide problem of poverty and argues four main premises: poverty is bad, help alleviate poverty “without sacrificing anything nearly as important”, donating money to aid organizations can prevent suffering and death, and if we do not donate to aid these organizations then we are doing wrong. I agree with these premises except with the last point that states that people are doing wrong if they do not aid organizations. Singer states, as one of his premises in his argument about ending poverty, “if you do not donate to aid agencies, you are doing something wrong”. This statement is the only premise that I disagreed with. First, you do not know where the proceeds go after you do not money.
Peter Singer a philosopher and professor at Princeton University who wrote the essay titled “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, where he argues that wealthy people have a moral obligation to help provide to developing nation’s resources that would increase their standard of living and decrease death due to starvation, exposure, and preventable sicknesses. John Arthur’s essay argues that Singer says that all affluent people have a moral obligation to give their money to poor people to the extent that the wealthy person would be on the same level as the poor person, poor people have no positive right to our assistance, and wealthy people have a negative right to their property, which weighs against their obligation.
In 102 Minutes, Chapter 7, authors Dwyer and Flynn use ethos, logos, and pathos to appeal to the readers’ consciences, minds and hearts regarding what happened to the people inside the Twin Towers on 9/11. Of particular interest are the following uses of the three appeals.
Throughout the course of this novel, Ishmael Beah keeps the readers on the edge of their seat by incorporating interchanging tones. At the beginning of the novel, the tone can be depicted as naïve, for Beah was unaware to what was actually occurring with the rebels. Eventually, the tone shifts to being very cynical and dark when he depicts the fighting he has endured both physically and mentally. However, the most game changing tone is towards the end of the novel in chapters nineteen and twenty. His tone can be understood as independent or prevailing. It can be portrayed as independent because Beah learns how to survive on his own and to take care of himself. At the same time, it is perceived as prevailing and uplifting because Beah was able to demonstrate that there is hope. Later in the novel, Beah travels to
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. While I agree with Singer’s argument in principle, I have a problem with his conclusion. In my view, the conclusion that Singer espouses is underdeveloped.
Singer presents his argument specifically in terms of famine relief and, although it has broader applicability, the discussion mostly falls under this specific topic. Thus, he conforms his argument around aspects relevant to famine and/or poverty when laying out his three core premises.
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...
Singer's argument appears to be mainly an appeal to logos, in his argument he reasons why he thinks it is morally required of people to give for famine relief and other needs. However, his argument relies heavily on pathos as well. The main thrust of his argument is this “If I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child dro...
In this paper I will argue that Singers arguments for solving world poverty are unrealistic for most people, not just those people in a well-off nation as America. Singer’s arguments are based on a Utilitarian Philosophic point of view, where he believes and practices the morally expected acts of kindness to our fellowmen. He does this through donating most of his salary to charities and argues that we should strive to do the same, but digress and argues the grave challenge that we face in our decision to adopt his philosophy. He concludes that all humans, specifically us in America faces the predicament of how we should act as it relates to how much we give to suffering
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.
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.
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.
In his article, the author Peter Singer presents valid points within his work in a way that provokes one to question their morals and ethics. He rationalizes the gift of donation in an unconventional but motivating manor. The purpose of “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” is to encourage people to reevaluate his or her ability to contribute to the underprivileged people of the world. Singer is addressing this article to any person with the ability to donate. The author makes it clear that nearly everyone has the ability to make a difference is others lives. Additionally, in “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, the author explain that we have a duty to give, but he is not stating whether it is a duty of justice in Narveson’s sense. He is not stating if would be morally correct for anyone to force us or impose to us to give to the needy. This author is trying to persuade or convince people to give voluntarily. The author is not enforcing to do something, this is contrary to Narveson’s position “enforced fee”. “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” addresses the urgency for a more generous world. Peter Singer presents valid points within his work in a way that provokes one to question their morals and ethics. He rationalizes the gift of donation in an unconventional but motivating manor. The main purpose of “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” is to
Peter Singer’s argument focuses greatly on the nation that citizens of rich nations can with ease help poor nations, without causing any financial burden, therefore, helping those in need should be done.
Material items are always going to be desirable, but helping others provides a greater sense of happiness than a brand new 40-inch television set. Aiding others can move beyond making a person smile, it can even save a life. In the article “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Peter Singer provides the audience with a summary of the foreign film Central Station. In the film, a woman named Dora is given the opportunity to earn $1,000 by delivering a young boy to a specific address. She quickly learns that the young boy is going to be killed, so she sets out to save his life. Of course, this example is more dramatic than any situation the average person will have to face. Singer recognizes the disparity and asks, “What is the ethical distinction 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?” This idea is not, however, limited to citizens of the United States; it applies to any non-third world country. A ridiculous amount of people waste their money on trivial things when it can be spent helping others. Several celebrities recognize this, including the late Princess Diana, and attempt to use their money to donate to poor, starving children in Ethiopia. At charity galas, reporters will ...
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.