The Ethics and Morals of Giving:
An Evaluation of the Singer Solution to World Poverty
Generosity does not necessarily means giving to others what they really need, but the giver risking his or her own necessities just to please others (Khalil Gibran). Peter singer suggested a solution to the world poverty in his given titled essay “the singer solution to world poverty.” Peter Singer makes multiple different assumptions in his proposal about the world poverty, and they are seen on the aspect that Americans spend too much savings on things and services that are not necessarily needed. First, Singer evaluate those who focus more on their wants rather than their pressing needs. He also talked about saving a child over valuables. Singer went further
…show more content…
Yet, Dora regrets her nefarious decision of wanting to sell a street boy and rescue him from his doom. Peter singer compared this act with that of an American who spend their money mostly on material things, vacations, and foods forgetting that the money spent could make a difference in the life of children in need. Singer goes on to compare the similarity of the situations saying that the only difference is to neglect the situation that is not happening now and focus more on the one that is in the present. He also went ahead in calling himself a Utilitarian philosopher, that is, a good judge whether acts are right or wrong by their …show more content…
He also uses an easy-going and persuading tone in this article, and he shows his views in a passionate manner by giving several illustrations. The author’s main point is that it is morally wrong for opulent people to spend money on unnecessary things such as restaurants and vacation. Human does not need excessive luxuries, frivolous electronics, expensive accessories and clothes. What we need are healthy food, shelter and other basic amenities. Most people are more concerned about the trending electronics and fashions, so as to meet up with the taste of the society. Some people also get carried away by the looks of the celebrities, and want to be like the celebrities. Though sometimes we need to treat ourselves well by going to an exotic places, but we shouldn't make it a habit that must be done.
Finally, Peter singer targeted all Americans in his article suggesting that everyone needs to help. He condemns people who do not donate money to charity organizations as been “morally wrong”. Also, he is insinuating that if Americans do not donate money to charity organizations to help save children's lives oversea, then they are morally wrong. The implication is that it is either the lives of the children are saved by donating to charity or one is morally wrong by causing their
“The Singer Solution to Poverty” by Peter Singer and “Facing Famine” by Tom Haines, are both dealing with the same issues but the only difference between the two authors are that they use different tactics in which to address the problem and also attempt to get assistance from others. Although both authors intentions are the same, Haines has a much better strategy of getting the sympathy attention from his audience rather than making them feel guilty for living an average life. The author Peter Singer argues that there is no reason why Americans can’t donate money if they are able to afford luxurious material/products that are not essential to their lives and health. Singer 's solution is for Americans to stop using their money on things that
He continued to mention how Americas are greedy with their money and they can use it to save children’s lives instead of spending money on unnecessary things. Another story was mentioned about a guy named Bob. Bob had had a nice expensive car he had all his money invested into. One day it was parked on railroad tracks and a train was coming, Bob then saw a child also on the train tracks. He had a choice, to save the kid or to save his life investments. Bob had chosen to save his car in which he let the kid get hit. Therefore, only one kid was killed but there are even more kids dying across seas. Singer mentions many times throughout the article how to donate money to save lives. While also mentioning all the different organizations you can use to donate, and how much you should donate. Peter says that it only takes “$200 to save a child’s life. Singer also thinks that Americans should donate any extra money they have instead of going out to dinner or spending money on television’s. He explained that people should donate any income that they make that isn’t a necessity to
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
According to Peter Singer, we as a society must adopt a more radical approach with regards to donating to charity and rejecting the common sense view. In the essay Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Singer argues that we have a strong moral obligation to give to charity, and to give more than we normally do. Critics against Singer have argued that being charitable is dependent on multiple factors and adopting a more revisionary approach to charity is more difficult than Singer suggests; we are not morally obliged to donate to charity to that extent.
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 ...
It is widely believed that charity is voluntary, a supererogatory action, while a duty is an obligatory action. Singer shares this view, but there are reason to think that he should not. Singer’s principle seems to imply that it should not be considered a voluntary action to create change and help those in need. And, not only does it only suggest that we should change the way we think, but it indicates that we should do everything that we can to minimize the suffering because it is our moral
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
In the essay, "The Singer Solution to World Poverty", Singer uses pathos and an assertive tone to emphasize the dire moral issues plaguing the United States and to demonstrate to the audience that their money would be best spent helping others. Singer begins his essay with an allusion to the Brazilian film, Central Station, when he says, "He (a homeless boy) will be killed and his organs sold for transplantation" Singer uses his bold tone to bluntly state that an innocent boy, like an old car, will be used as spare parts. Since the boy was an innocent child, Singer evokes anger from the audience who resents Dora, the one who sold the boy, for her immoral decision to trade the boy's life for something as menial as a television set. The audience, in reaction to the emotional appeal and bold tone, find themselves wishing there was a way that they could help the boy and makes...
Singer uses some extreme methods in order to achieve his goal of getting readers to truly believe in his ideas and change their values and lifestyles. He uses an informal and conversational tone in this article and he demonstrates his views in an emotional manner by giving several illustrations. The author’s main point is that it is morally wrong for affluent people to spend money on unnecessary things such as restaurants and vacations when children are suffering in other countries. The use of this points out that the author believes in moralistic and compassionate values.
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
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.