Peter Singer Pros And Cons

491 Words1 Page
bulb-icon

Recommended: Essays on selfishness

Peter Singer states that in order to solve world poverty we as a society need to donate more time, money, and effort to humanitarian causes. All money that one doesn't need for the basic resources to survive should be donated to the less fortunate. Therefore making it perfectly clear that you cannot judge anyone if you don't even donate the very money you possess. Peter Singer has a point when mentioning the cons to his argument. People are selfish. Some would rather spend the extra $200 on a nice dinner night than to donate it overseas to children that really need it. Also, two-thirds of someone's income they bring in are used for necessities, but the other one-third is used for a newer TV set, a vacation, even brand new clothes because the old ones went out of style. A scenario like Bob and his Bugatti is a perfect example. He was right. You cannot judge Bob for saving his car rather than the child if you won't even donate $200 to save a child's life. …show more content…

Singer makes you reflect on the decisions you've made and the decisions you were going to make for the future. To help push more money to kids overseas, he provides a phone number, urging the readers to pick up the phone and donate some sort of amount of money. Another scenario is a nice dinner night. Once you've made yourself feel good about donating some money overseas, you want to go out and celebrate with your spouse, but another red flag pops up. Instead of having a nice expensive dinner for one night, try skipping it for that month and instead donate even more money to

Show More
Related

  • Analysis Of Peter Singer's Famine, Affluence, And Welfare

    732 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Peter Singer's Paper 'Famine, Affluence and Morality'

    1498 Words  | 3 Pages

    Singer starts with the base of assumption that suffering and death from lack of the essentials of food, water, shelter, and proper medical assistance are bad. I find no problem with accepting this assumption as it is consistent with most widely accepted moral theories. 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. Singer admits that this would drastically change the way people live their lives. Instead of living with any disposable income, people would be giving money to those who are living under bad or unsurvivable conditions. But wi...

    Read More

  • Morality of Giving

    1069 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Summary Of The Singer Solution To World Poverty

    623 Words  | 2 Pages

    Singer suggests that if people donated more money to these causes, countless children could be saved in the process. Even though Singer argues that poverty can be reduced by living an improved moral lifestyle, he focuses on the monetary aspects.

    Read More

  • Why Is Peter Singer Unethical

    812 Words  | 2 Pages

    People weren’t put on this earth to provide for people out of guilt. The world is not an equitable place that provides the same amount of things for everyone, and this may make people feel bad for what they acquire. Why should someone pay for a movie, when there is a child in another country dying from malaria? Instead of skipping the movie out of the kindness of our heart, we skip the movie out of guilt. We act out of guilt due to the fact that we have been more fortunate in the life we live, compared to others’ in the world.

    Read More

  • Analysis of The Singer Solution to World Poverty by Peter Singer

    822 Words  | 2 Pages

    Saint Augustine once said, “Find out how much God has given you and from it take what you need; the remainder is needed by others.” (Augustine). Augustine's belief that it is the duty of the individual to assist those less fortunate than themselves is expressed in the essay "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" by Peter Singer. Singer shares his conviction that those living in luxury should support those struggling to survive in poverty. Singer adopts the persona of a sage utilitarian philosopher who judges the morality of actions based on the consequences that are wrought by them. Singer utilizes powerful pathos, rhetorical questions, ethos, and a bold tone which contributes to his purpose of persuading his intended audience of American consumers to live only on necessity rather than luxury as well as to donate their discretionary income to the impoverished.

    Read More

  • Global Poverty

    570 Words  | 2 Pages

    Peter Singer, in his influential essay “Famine, Affluence and Poverty”, argues that affluent people have the moral obligation to contribute to charity in order to save the poor from suffering; any spending on luxuries would be unjustified as long as it can be used to improve other’s lives. In developing his argument, Singer involves one crucial premise known as the Principle of Sacrifice—“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” . To show that such principle has the property to be held universal, Singer refers to a scenario in which a person witnesses a drowning child. Most people, by common sense, hold that the witness has the moral duty to rescue the child despite some potential costs. Since letting people die in poverty is no different from watching a child drowning without offering any help, Singer goes on and concludes that affluent people have the moral duty to keep donating to the poor until an increment of money makes no further contribution.

    Read More

  • Peter Singer Famine Essay

    559 Words  | 2 Pages

    Singer goes on to explain that people need to put their priorities in order and become more charitable. They need to feel the moral obligation to take action. We view charity as supererogatory, defined as “an act which it would be good to do, but not wrong not to do” (p. 521). In other words, it is up to your own discretion based on your own values and morals. Sadly, often humans take the lazy approach, and if it does not benefit them, they do not do it.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of The Singer Solution To World Poverty By Peter Singer

    735 Words  | 2 Pages

    Rich people control everything and that simple idea is aiding and abetting the status quo. Early on, he asked that everyone donate two hundred dollars. Singer proved that it was enough to save a child’s life by using well-studied research. Yet he continues to argue that everyone donate any extra money to charity.

    Read More

  • Peter Singer Poverty

    635 Words  | 2 Pages

    From "The Singer Solution to World Poverty." The New York Times Magazine (1999). Using several examples to present his case, Peter Singer debates that our spending on unessential items & luxuries, should be contributed to help solve poverty. Selfishness is among what comprise the core of Singers ethical thinking, from a very influential and controversial Philosopher Peter Singer portrays to his readers that people have motive to spend money on luxurious things in contrast to having the thought of sacrificing what you may have to help the needy. Peter Singer depicts two stories that question an individual’s morals.

    Read More

  • Peter Singer Poverty

    888 Words  | 2 Pages

    These statistics add information necessary for the reader to visualize how much money people should or could donate. Singer proposes, “You shouldn’t take that cruise, redecorate the house, or get that pricey new suit. After all, a $1,000 suit could save five children’s lives” (933). This statement, gets people to realize how much he or she could be spending on a more useful cause. Singer’s use of statistics in his article makes it much easier for the reader to know how much money should be donated.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Peter Singer's 'When Giving Hurts Too Much'

    1266 Words  | 3 Pages

    It is hard to deny that we have the moral obligation to do everything in our power to save the life of this child. Singer gets few arguments concerning this action; however, should that moral intuition necessarily extend to someone starving in Africa? This is comparing apples to oranges in a way because one can easily see the imminent danger which will result in certain death if one fails to act immediately. It is difficult to compare the results of the action of one individual when saving the child and the outcome for the poor in

    Read More

  • Peter Singer's Argument Analysis

    1016 Words  | 3 Pages

    His argument goes as follows. If you are part of a well-developed nation, then it should be your obligation to help out others in poorer countries. If his argument was just targeted at people in richer countries to help out, then I would disagree with him. Just because you live in a wealthier country does not mean you are in the financial position to help out or give charity. Though in the quote, ‘If you are living comfortably while others are dying from easily preventable diseases, and you are doing nothing about it, there is something wrong with your behaviour’, Peter Singer, Humility Kills, Jewcy, May 2007, He states that if you are living comfortably, referring to being in a financial position to do something like give charity.

    Read More

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

    1154 Words  | 3 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.

    Read More

  • Famine, Affluence And Morality By Peter Singer

    706 Words  | 2 Pages

    This obligatory nature of his argument urges people to donate the money that would otherwise be spent on luxuries. Singer’s profound conclusion has been supported by an analogy: What would you do if you saw a small child drowning? There can be little doubt that, despite the inconvenience of getting our clothes muddy and shoes wet, people will attempt to save the child’s life. From this example, Singer builds on to argue that there is no moral difference between letting the child drown and letting one die of poverty in a greater geographical distance. After refuting some objections raised by other scholars, Singer reiterates the importance of our obligation to help, which should not be lessened by the refusal of other people to help.

    Read More

More about Peter Singer Pros And Cons

Open Document