How much money is one morally obligated to give to relief overseas? Many In people would say that although it is a good thing to do, one is not obligated to give anything. Other people would say that if a person has more than he needs, then he should donate a portion of what he has. Peter Singer, however, proposes a radically different view. His essay, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” focuses on the Bengal crisis in 1971 and claims that one is morally obligated to give as much as possible. His thesis supports the idea that “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” (399). He says that one's obligation to give to people in need half-way around the world is just as strong as the obligation to give to one's neighbor in need. Even more than that, he says that one should keep giving until, by giving more, you would be in a worse position than the people one means to help. Singer's claim is so different than people's typical idea of morality that is it is easy to quickly dismiss it as being absurd. Saying that one should provide monetary relief to the point that you are in as bad a position as those receiving your aid seems to go against common sense. However, when the evidence he presents is considered, it is impossible not to wonder if he might be right. 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... ... middle of paper ... ... of morality built into us. People have been living thousand of years where the only thing we knew of was near them. Even if someone had wanted to help people in need who were far away, it would have been impossible. It was not until very recently that the ability to help people anywhere in the globe came about . With the creation of companies who provide relief, such as the Red Cross, people are able to give as much as they have. So perhaps the morality that civilization has been living with since its beginnings has changed. Works Cited 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. Wong, David. "What Is the Monkeysphere?" Cracked.com - America's Only Humor & Video Site Since 1958. Cracked.com. 30 Sept. 2007. Web. 29 Mar. 2011.
“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
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
He views it as something that is more of an obligation or moral duty, rather than an option. According to Singer’s view of charity, if more people were to adopt a radical view of charity, we would be able to prevent what is bad, rather than simply promoting what is good. People must give to charity whenever they can because suffering from a lack of food/hunger or extreme poverty is generally bad. Most people that aren’t suffering from extreme hunger or poverty generally have the means to give to charity, therefore, according to Singer, if we have the means to give to charity and we aren’t giving up anything of great moral worth, then we must try to stop the suffering.
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
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.
In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer is trying to argue that “the way people in relatively affluent countries react to a situation… cannot be justified; indeed,… 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”(Singer 230). Peter Singer provides striking examples to show the reader how realistic his arguments are. In this paper, I will briefly give a summary of Peter Singer’s argument and the assumptions that follow, adding personal opinions for or against Peter’s statements. I hope that within this paper, I am able to be clearly show you my thoughts in regards to Singer.
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.
Peter Unger attempts to persuade his audience into believing that it is their moral obligation to do anything and everything in their powers to reduce the suffering in the world caused by poverty. He takes a utilitarian approach to the poverty question by arguing that we should focus on how to save the most people by using donations as efficiently as possible. This means that we must not only take into consideration number of lives saved but also the amount of good each of those lives may do.
In this paper I will examine both Peter Singer’s and Onora O 'Neill 's positions on famine relief. I will argue that O’Neill’s position is more suitable than Singer’s extreme standpoint. First I will, present O’Neill’s argument. I will then present a possible counter-argument to one of my premises. Finally I will show how this counter-argument is fallacious and how O’Neill’s argument in fact goes through.
Singer’s position and his argument suggest that people are obligated to give, care, or help others who are in need. As stated in his second premise, “If we can prevent very bad things from happening, without sacrificing something of comparable moral value, then we are morally required to do it”, dictates that we as humans, are compelled to help others no matter the self-sacrifice and moral value that is in the current state. One of the cases that motivates Singer’s second premise is the example of the “Shallow Pond”, in which the person with the nice and expensive shoes is morally obligated to save a child’s life from drowning while sacrificing his expensive new shoes. This is an example of how people should be morally obligated to save others. That everyone should be obligated to help a person’s life because a person’s life is equal to another and is more important than the shoes, or other luxury items. Some confl...
Kinealy, Christine. “’The Famine Killed Everything’: Living with the Memory of the Great Hunger.” Ireland’s Great Hunger. Eds. David A. Valone and Christine Kinealy. NewYork: University Press of America, 2002. 1-40.
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
The Samaritan’s dilemma occurs when giving charitable donations removes the incentive for the receiver to improve their own situation. When aid is given, the receiver initially has two options: they can use the aid to improve their situation, or they can trust that they will receive aid again and do nothing productive with the aid they receive. Good Samaritans evidently give charitable donations in hopes of the former, however we will see that this scenario does not necessarily play out in their favour (Coate 1995). The Samaritan’s dilemma often presents itself in the area of foreign aid, and there are certain measures the government can take to eliminate the uncertainty it causes. In this essay I will first discuss the significance of the
Morality can be based on consciousness and various perspectives but morals, regardless of distinct cultures, have a core fundamental of comprehending what is right and wrong. By this, we are held to an obligation to assist those in need. This means that we should feel obligated to do whatever it is within our might to aid situations that need assistance.
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.