Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Comparison of poverty between developing countries
Essay on social inequality in health
Climate change impact on food security essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Comparison of poverty between developing countries
Rich vs. Poor: Distributing the World’s Wealth Equally
Think about the house that you live in, the neighbors that surround you and the town where you come from. More importantly, think about the car, clothing, and material things that you possess. Living an absolutely affluent life, as most of us do, is something that we take for granted. Now put yourself in the shoes of a child at the age of 5 in Zambia. There is no roof over your head, no shoes on your feet, and no food on the table to eat. You live every day wondering how much longer you will survive in this situation. This example may represent an extreme situation in Zambia, but forces one to think about how many people are living in poverty throughout the world.
Poor people often lack adequate food and shelter and education and health, which keeps them from leading the kind of life that everyone values. They are extremely vulnerable to illness, to economic displacement, and are treated negatively by institutions in society. Of the world’s 6 billion people, 2.8 billion live on less than $2 a day, and 1.2 billion live on less than $1 a day. In rich countries, fewer than 5 percent of all children under 5 are malnourished, in poor countries as many as 50 percent are (Attacking poverty 3). This impoverishment continues to exist even though human conditions have improved more in the past century than ever before. Global wealth and technically advanced capabilities may be at their highest levels yet, but the distribution of these gains is tremendously unequal. The increasing rates of poverty throughout many countries in the world and the imbalance of wealth leads me to believe that the rich have a moral obligation to help those who are less fortunate. According t...
... middle of paper ...
... and improving sanitation conditions would better the life of the poor. If people would be willing to make small contributions to the poor, poverty rates could possibly begin to decline altogether. If the extremes of relative wealth and poverty are diminished I believe it would lead to a world where being absolutely poor no longer exits.
Works Cited
* “Attacking Poverty: Opportunity, Empowerment, and Security.” World Development Report 2001/2002: 1-12. http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/wdrpoverty
* “Rich vs. Poor Stats.” Online: http://geocities.com/mrastafari/richpoor.html
* Singer, Peter. “Rich and Poor.” Practical Ethics, 2nd ed.: 218-246. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993
* Singer, Peter. “The Singer Solution to World Poverty.” The New York Times. September 5, 1999: 1-7. http://www.fordham.edu/economics/combs/savechild.pdf
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
Singer, Peter. “The Singer Solution to World Poverty.” in The Allyn & Bacon Guide to Writing. John D. Ramage, John C. Bean, and June Johnson. 5th ed. New York: Longman, 2009. 545-49. Print.
People are starving all over the world. They lack food, water, and basic medication. Some suggest that the wealthy should donate and do their part to help. Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics, wrote an article called “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” in The New York Times Magazine, in which he suggests that the prosperous people should donate all money not needed for the basic requirements of life.
Singer, Peter. "The Singer Solution to World Poverty." The New York Times Magazine 05 Sept. 1999: 60-63. Web. 22 Nov. 2013.
In Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence and Morality,” Singer makes three claims about moral duty; that avoidable suffering is bad, that it is our moral obligation to help others in need, and that we should help those in suffering regardless of their distance to us or if others are in the same position as we are to help. First, I will elaborate on Singer’s arguments for each of these positions. Next, I will discuss two objections to Singer’s position, one that he debates in his writings and another that I examine on my own, and Singer’s responses to those objections. Then I will examine why Singer’s rebuttals to the objections were successful.
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.
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 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.
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 the article, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Peter Singer expresses his displeasure with people not preventing bad things from happening, even when it is within their power. Spending money on buying extravagant goods instead of giving it to the needy seems to be a foreign concept to him. He questions how human beings can be so inhumane to ignore other’s sufferings. Singer is an utilitarian and believes in lending aid to the underprivileged. Through his paper, Singer argues that well-to-do people are morally obligated to help the impoverished. He also writes about the objections made on his viewpoints and responds to them with solutions.
This statement leads me to my next point of Singer’s argument that being one of many to assist does not take away the responsibility that you have as an individual. He supports his viewpoint with a progressive scale of every person donating at least one percent of their income and taxpayers giving five percent of their income. If everyone in affluent countries donated with Singer’s proposed scale, they would raise $1.5 trillion dollars a year –which is eight times more than what poor countries aim for in hopes of improving health care, schooling, reducing death rates, living standards, and more. Even though Singer proposes the progressive scale for giving money to aid extreme poverty, he does not introduce any alternative methods to giving aid. Singer presented this point in the argument accurately, but is not strong enough to support the child-drowning example. In comparison to the child drowning, Singer’s proposal is weak because you cannot hold people accountable for not donating a percentage of their income; however, you can hold a person or group of people accountable for watching and not saving the child from
Famine, Affluence, and Morality; Singer suggested, “we should prevent bad occurrences unless, to do so, we had to sacrifice something morally significant” (C&M, 827). However, different philosophers and writers have criticized his view and the general idea to help the poor.
Through individual, national, and global aid, we can take steps to decrease the overwhelming amount of poverty in less-developed countries and even in our own lands.
In conclusion, sometimes actions take place that changes a person’s outlook on life and as you can see poverty is one that can have a huge effect on not only one person, but also the people around him/ her.