Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
poverty an its social effect
poverty an its social effect
poverty an its social effect
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: poverty an its social effect
In early 2001 the people of Queensland suffered from natural disasters that caused loss of life and property. Charitable support for these people of was overwhelming and the loss was sweetened by the generosity of fellow humans helping those in need. Can this generosity extend beyond our borders to help those that are suffering from the (preventable) lack of basic needs such as food? Or should Australians – and in fact all global citizens – only reach out to their own nations, turning a blind eye to those beyond their borders? The answer seems morally apparent, but why does chronic poverty still exist? Giving to the hungry needs to be an absolute (or universal) obligation, one in which all rational moral agents can abide insomuch that it will not significantly impact their own wellbeing. Firstly, many citizens of Australia can afford to give a little; our nation’s high standard of living allows many families expendable income that can afford luxuries such as fancy coffee, long weekend getaways, or a case of wine, from time to time. Peter Singer is an advocate for social justice and has discussed our moral duties as affluent citizens in length. His book, ‘The life you can save’ suggests a sliding scale of giving according to income, which agreeably reinforces the idea that giving should not impact one’s own wellbeing. However, it needs to be clarified that his idea challenges the act of giving – normally considered as charity – and instead proposes it as a duty, and therefore an absolute obligation. To create this revision from charity to duty, we ought to view the act of indulgence – without the act of giving – as morally wrong; that we should give because it is wrong NOT to do so. Singer believes that once it is apparent that ... ... middle of paper ... ... should give as a moral obligation, because we can give and we will feel happier for doing so. Works Cited Aknin, L., Barrington-Leigh, C., Dunn, E., Helliwell, J., Biswas-Diener, R., Kemeza, I., Ashton-James, C. (2010, September). Prosocial spending and wellbeing: Cross cultural evidence for a psychological universal (Working paper No. 16495). Retrieved from National Bureau of Economic Research website: http://scholar.google.com.au/ scholar?q=prosocial+spending+and+wellbeing &hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart Hardin, G. (1974, September). Lifeboat ethics: the case against helping the poor. Psychology Today. Retrieved from http://www.garretthardinsociety.org /articles/art_lifeboat_ethics_case_against_helping_poor.html Singer, P. (1972, April 1). Famine, affluence, and morality. Philosophy & public affairs, 1(3), 229-243. doi:10.2307/j100428
Pogge, Thomas Winfried Menko, and Keith Horton. "Famine, Affluence and Poverty." In Global ethics: seminal essays. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House, 2008. 1-14.
In order to understand why O’Neill’s position is superior to Singer’s position on famine relief, I will present information on both sides. O’Neill gives a Kantian, duty-based explanation, that focuses on people 's intentions. One of the central claims of Kantian ethics is that one must never treat a person, either oneself or another, as mere
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 ...
The objection says that Singer’s analyses of moral duty conflicts with society’s current outlook on charity, which views it as not an obligation but a personal choice, where those who choose to give are praised for their philanthropy but those who choose not to give are not condemned (236). Singer retorts this objection by saying that we as a society need to essentially change our perspective of charity (236). What Singer means by this is that we need to drastically revise our ideas of what a moral duty is because, in agreement with Singer’s premise that we are morally obligated to help those who are suffering if it is within our power to do so without causing something equally as bad as the suffering to happen (231), charity should be considered as our moral responsibility and a mandatory duty for society
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.
Peter Singer's paper “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”has made a drastic impact in modern applied ethics. The simple nature of the paper makes for an easy read, yet the point clearly set out by Singer is at ends with the targeted audiences' popular beliefs. Although most will object to Singer's idea by throwing away a basic principle of most moral theories, I wish to deny Singer's solution by showing that the ability to apply Singer's conclusion is not reasonable and does not address the problem's core.
In the article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer argues that our conceptions on moral belief need to change. Specifically, He argues that giving to famine relief is not optional but a moral duty and failing to contribute money is immoral. As Singer puts it, “The way people in affluent countries react ... cannot be justified; indeed the whole way we look at moral issues-our moral conceptual scheme-needs to be altered and with it, the way of life that has come to be taken for granted in our society”(135). 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.
Most people feel that they should help the needy in some way or another. The problem is how to help them. This problem generally arises when there is a person sitting on the side of the road in battered clothes with a cardboard sign asking for some form of help, almost always in the form of money. Yet something makes the giver uneasy. What will they do with this money? Do they need this money? Will it really help them? The truth of the matter is, it won't. However, there are things that can be done to help the needy. Giving money to a reliable foundation will help the helpless, something that transferring money from a pocket to a man's tin can will never do.
Singer argues that people who live in countries that are affluent should change their ways of living and their conception of what
All different ethical theories can look at the same problem and come to different conclusions. Even philosopher’s such as Singer and Arthur understand and view ethical values differently. Peter Singer who uses the utilitarian theory believes that wealthy people should give to the degree that the wealthy person now someone in need themselves. John Arthur believes those in need or those suffering are only entitled to the help of the wealthy person if that person agrees to help, and that the property rights of the wealthy person declines the amount that Singer believes people should. People should help other people. I believe all people deserve the right to receive assistance and to not help those people would be morally wrong. However, I do not believe that the help that we are morally obligated to give should come at the cost of our own well-being.
Hardin, G. (1974, September ). Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor. Retrieved fromhttp://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_lifeboat_ethics_case_against_helping_poor.html
The essay titled "Lifeboat Ethics: the Case against Helping the Poor" by Garrett Hardin, was very interesting. The first part of the essay used a metaphor of the rich people of the earth in a lifeboat and the poor people in the sea drowning. The rich people could only allow a few people in and if they let, too many people in they will sink the boat and all die. The best thing for the rich people to do is not to let anyone in so they will have adequate supplies and space for them to survive.
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.
Poverty has conquered nations around the world, striking the populations down through disease and starvation. Small children with sunken eyes are displayed on national television to remind those sitting in warm, luxiourious houses that living conditions are less than tolerable around the world. Though it is easy to empathize for the poor, it is sometimes harder to reach into our pocketbooks and support them. No one desires people to suffer, but do wealthy nations have a moral obligation to aid poor nations who are unable to help themselves? Garrett Hardin in, "Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping The Poor," uses a lifeboat analogy to expose the global negative consequences that could accompany the support of poor nations. Hardin stresses problems including population increase and environmental overuse as downfalls that are necessary to consider for the survival of wealthy nations. In contrast, Peter Singer's piece, "Rich and Poor," remarks on the large differences between living conditions of those in absolute poverty with the wealthy, concluding that the rich nations possess a moral obligation to the poor that surpasses the risks involved. Theodore Sumberg's book, "Foreign Aid As Moral Obligation," documents religious and political views that encourage foreign aid. Kevin M. Morrison and David Weiner, a research analyst and senior fellow respectively at the Overseas Development Council, note the positive impact of foreign aid to America, a wealthy nation. Following the examination of these texts, it seems that not only do we have a moral obligation to the poor, but aiding poor nations is in the best interest of wealthy nations.
In Garrett Hardin’s “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor, Hardin argues that you should not help the poor because there are limited resources and if the poor continue to seek help they will continue to overpopulate, disrespecting all of limits. Hardin supports his argument by using the lifeboat metaphor while trying to convince the rich not to lend a helping hand to the poor. In the lifeboat metaphor Garrett Hardin uses the upper class and the lower class people to give us a visual of how the lifeboat scenario actually works. Along with the lifeboat metaphor, Hardin uses the tragedy of commons, population growth, and the Joseph and Pharaoh biblical story to persuade the readers.When reading “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against