Peter Singer's Argument Analysis

1016 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Poverty in developing countries

The obligations of people in well developed nations to help the world’s poorest people The purpose of this essay is to investigate and evaluate the contemporary ethical issue of the obligations of people in developed nations to help the world’s poorest people. In this essay I will provide an evaluation of Peter Singer’s idea about helping others in need and will investigate his thoughts on the matter and his reasoning behind it. As Peter Singer States ‘giving to charity is neither charitable nor generous; it is no more than our duty and not giving would be wrong’, Peter Singer, BBC, Ethics guide, 2014, He believes that well developed countries should be obligated to help others in need. His reasons behind this are as follows; His first reason …show more content…

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. Then I would agree with his argument. If it was only referring to those who are in the position to help others in need, not only if they are in a well-developed country. His reason about this obligation, of pain should not be caused by the lack of food, shelter or medical care is definitely easy to agree on. If people in wealthier countries have the access to these necessities, then why should those in poorer nations not have the same privileges? Just because they were born if a different country. His second reason, ‘if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening without thereby sacrificing something of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it. But in this statement, who’s to say what’s of comparable moral importance. How is it determined if it’s sacrificing something or if it is not. And who’s to say what Singer might think sacrificing is less important than something else is what others will necessarily think. They might not share the same viewpoint and therefore not help out if the consequence to them is what they think is worse. But if by chance it is not of comparable moral importance, then yes, I would agree with his argument that we ought morally to do it.

Show More
Related

  • Andrew Carnegie And Peter Singer

    1346 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Reevaluating Charity: A Radical Approach

    870 Words  | 2 Pages

    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. Throughout his essay, Singer argues that we must reject the common sense view of giving to charity. The common sense view of giving to charity is one that is supererogatory; it is not obligated for us as a society to give to charity, however, we should if we want to.

    Read More

  • Peter Singer's Essay 'Affluence, And Morality'

    1343 Words  | 3 Pages

    In the paper “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”  Peter Singer defends the idea that is our moral duty to help others in need. Since there are other people in the world that are suffering and we our in a position to give, we are obligated to help create change in the world . In this paper I will explain Peter Singer’s view about how it is our moral duty to help those who are suffering in the world. Then I will present an implication of Peter Singer claim that implies how we are obligated to give upon to others that are suffering. I will then explain an argurment to provide a reason of why someone should support Peter Singer principle. Carried to a logical conclusion, Peter Singer aruement that his principle is clearly obligatory than superagory. I will consider the two actions that Peter Singer gives to distinguish duty versues chariy and argue that his principle should e consider a superagoty action. Since his

    Read More

  • Peter Singer's Argument in Famine, Affluence and Morality

    1493 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...themselves. By adding further conditions or exceptions we could address specific objections and create more narrowly defined obligations. Further modifications of PP’ would not generally eliminate obligations, but it would allow choices to be made. In particular, for the affluent, doing nothing remains off limits so they would still be required to do what they can to alleviate suffering in places where they are in agreement that help is warranted. This derivation from the original argument plausibly supports the basic argument made by Singer that we ought to do everything in our power to help those in need so long as we need not sacrifice anything significant.

    Read More

  • Singer Cullity

    1687 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

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

    1498 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Peter Singer And Onora O Neill's Position On Famine Relief

    1016 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    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

  • Famine Relief

    1822 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Tracy Kidder’s Mountains Beyond Mountains

    1957 Words  | 4 Pages

    “The only real nation is humanity” (Farmer 123). This quote represents a huge message that is received in, Tracy Kidder’s, Mountains Beyond Mountains. This book argues that universal healthcare is a right and not a privilege. Kidder’s book also shows the audience that every individual, no matter what the circumstances, is entitled to receive quality health care. In the book Kidder represents, Paul Farmer, a man who spends his entire life determined to improve the health care of impoverished areas around the world, namely Haiti, one of the poorest nations in the world. By doing this the audience learns of the horrible circumstances, and the lack of quality health care that nations like Haiti live with everyday, why every person has the right to healthcare no matter what, and how cost effectiveness should not determine whether or not these people get to live or die. Two texts that also argue this idea are Monte Leach’s “Ensuring Health Care as a Global Human Right,” and Darshak Sanghavi’s “Is it Cost Effective to Treat the World’s Poor.” Leach’s article is an interview with Benjamin Crème that illustrates why food, shelter, education, and healthcare are human rights that have to be available to everyone. He shares many of the same views on health care as Farmer, and the two also share similar solutions to this ongoing problem. Leach also talks about the rapidly growing aids epidemic, and how it must be stopped. Like farmer, he also argues that it is easier to prevent these diseases then to cure them. Furthermore, Sanghavi’s article represents many of the questions that people would ask about cost effectiveness. Yet similar to Farmer’s views, Sanghavi argues that letting the poor d...

    Read More

  • Singers Solution to World Poverty

    1213 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Peter Singer's The Obligation To Assist

    704 Words  | 2 Pages

    Peter Singer’s position in his work “The Obligation to Assist”, is that all people are morally obligated to help one another without it causing any additional harm. He refers to “comparable moral significance”, which means that helping another must not cause anything worse to happen, or be a morally wrong action in and of itself, and must also be done if a comparably awful event can be stopped. His first premise is that if absolute poverty is wrong, and it can be stopped without worse consequences, then it should be stopped altogether. His second premise is that if you were to see a drowning child, you would help them out of the lake, even if your coat happens to get wet. His third premise is that morals do not need to be examined, as the need to help others should be logical without examining the morality behind it. His final premise is that the First World is rich enough to reduce poverty, and can therefore feel obligated to help. The implication of this position is that no matter what situation surrounds the person in need of help, another person would be obligated to assist them. Thusly, people who could help without having to forgo “comparable moral significance” and refrain from

    Read More

  • Difference Between Jan Narveson Vs Peter Singer

    1135 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Moral obligation to help

    1924 Words  | 4 Pages

    Peter Singer said; “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” (Famine, Affluence, and Morality). As human beings, we have a moral compulsion to help other people, despite the verity that they may be strangers, especially when whatever type of aid we may render can in no approach have a more significant consequence on our own life.

    Read More

  • Utilitarianism In John Singer's Peter Singer Solution To World Poverty

    1828 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

More about Peter Singer's Argument Analysis

Open Document