More handpicked essays just for you.
Singer solution to world poverty
Peter singer the singer solution to world poverty
Peter singer the singer solution to world poverty
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In his essay “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Peter Singer prescribes a method in which he believes the poverty stricken populace of the world, particularly children, may be diminished. In order to achieve this, he says that “whatever money you’re spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away” (568). While some may argue that Singer does not truly expect people to hand over all expenditures which are not clearly definable bare necessities, he puts much weight on exactly that idea, leading me to believe it is intended to be taken literally. Additionally, taking in light this belief, I do not find Singer’s “solution” to be much of a solution at all. Singer acknowledges that, sadly, we live in a world which the vast majority …show more content…
Bob would have to sacrifice far more than two hundred dollars in order to save the child in the scenario. Choosing to save the Bugatti is morally reprehensible. With the audience’s assumed reaction in mind, he says, “It is hard to see how you could deny that it is also very wrong not to send money to one of the organizations” (565). While it is understood that Singer is comparing the weight of two hundred dollars to the majority of Bob’s life savings, invested in his Bugatti, as quite less significant, he believes a clear moral line cannot be drawn between the two. Again, he states plainly, “These readers seem to be acting at least as badly as Bob” (566). As badly as Bob, truly? If Singer undoubtedly does not believe everyone should be giving all or most of their disposable income to charities, why does Bob’s Bugatti represent the bulk of his life savings? This begs the question: Are our necessities so easily quantifiable? Does Bob’s Bugatti only represent all unnecessary …show more content…
Singer seems to suggest an almost socialist view on how people should treat their earned income. If the strive to live beyond one’s needs is removed, what reason is there to exceed bare minimums? There is a reason this philosophy has never been successful. Taking away people’s incentives leaves less general innovation and forward momentum in the world. Whether people appreciate the origins or not, selfish incentives often drive such innovation. These innovations could possibly even improve the lives of the impoverished; however, realistically speaking, even if they generally do not, there is the simple matter of less supply and demand. This could result in buying less from countries that will suffer greatly due to lower product demand. Without the incentive to exceed basic needs, less money will be made on an individual basis, too. This hinders the individual’s ability to contribute to those in need, having put them in a position much closer to those which Singer believes should be
“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
He continued to mention how Americas are greedy with their money and they can use it to save children’s lives instead of spending money on unnecessary things. Another story was mentioned about a guy named Bob. Bob had had a nice expensive car he had all his money invested into. One day it was parked on railroad tracks and a train was coming, Bob then saw a child also on the train tracks. He had a choice, to save the kid or to save his life investments. Bob had chosen to save his car in which he let the kid get hit. Therefore, only one kid was killed but there are even more kids dying across seas. Singer mentions many times throughout the article how to donate money to save lives. While also mentioning all the different organizations you can use to donate, and how much you should donate. Peter says that it only takes “$200 to save a child’s life. Singer also thinks that Americans should donate any extra money they have instead of going out to dinner or spending money on television’s. He explained that people should donate any income that they make that isn’t a necessity to
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
In his essay, Singer states that "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." However, if individuals in first world countries were to continuously donate rather than spending that money on luxuries, the majority of their income would be spent on alleviating a global issue and their savings would ultimately diminish down to the level of global poverty until they would be unable to give any more.
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 imperfection of Singer’s solution to end world poverty exceeds its convenience in the average American. While the wealthy is targeted and responsible for the lack of donations to the less fortunate, singer gives poor supporting details in why the wealthy should donate a large portion of their wealth to only help a few individuals for a certain period of time.
One of the earliest topics in the film that I took note of was the ethics of certain matters, in a way that I had never considered before. The first, was the ethics of how we spend our money. An analogy was proposed by Peter Singer, who said he had asked many people this philosophical question in the past, and always gets the same answer. The question is, at its root, if you could save a child from drowning, with no risk to your own safety, but you would ruin your nice pair of shoes, would you do it? This is what I call a no-brainer. Nearly all would save the child, myself included. In turn, one would be out the cost of those nice shoes. However, Singer's point is that one could take the cost of those shoe...
...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.
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...
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
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.
John Arthur, an American professor of philosophy stated: “Is [Richard] Watson correct that all life is of equal value? Did Adolf Hitler and Martin Luther King, for example, lead equally valuable lives? Clearly one did far more good, the other far more harm; who would deny that while King fought for people’s rights, Hitler violated them on a massive scale? Nor are moral virtues like courage, kindness, and trustworthiness equally distributed among people. So there are many important sense in which people are not, in fact, morally equal: Some lives are more valuable to others, and some people are just, generous, and courageous, whereas others are unjust and cowardly” (*insert year quote was made).
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 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 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.