The Obligation Of Poverty In Peter Singer's Rich And Poor

1154 Words3 Pages
In the excerpt “Rich and Poor” from Peter Singer’s book “Practical Ethics,” Singer critiques how he portrays the way we respond to both absolute poverty and absolute affluence. Before coming to this class, I have always believed that donating or giving something of your own to help someone else is a moral decision. After reading Peter Singer’s argument that we are obligated to assist extreme poverty, I remain with the same beliefs I previously had. I will argue that Singer’s argument is not convincing. I will demonstrate that there are important differences between being obligated to save a small child from drowning (in his Shallow Pond Example) and being obligated to assist absolute poverty. These differences restrict his argument by analogy for the obligation to assist in the case of absolute poverty.
Singer argues that people who live in countries that are affluent should change their ways of living and their conception of what
…show more content…
The relevance between the child drowning and extreme poverty would seem accurate, but becomes unconvincing when he claims distance should not make a difference as a person is more likely to assist someone closer rather than far away. In favor of the objections towards Singer’s argument, it is only plausible to be obligated to assist if you knew the cause and assisted to the extent of a permanent solution to the situation like you would in Singer’s example if you saved the child from drowning. After reading Garritt Hardin’s objection, it allowed me to have a clearer understanding of the restrictions in Singer’s argument that lead me to remain unconvinced and with the same beliefs as I previously did before this class. Therefore, I can conclude that Peter Singer’s analogy is too restricted and I do not believe that we are obligated to assist rather it is a moral
Open Document