Often times, the middle and upper classes underestimate the amount of poverty left in our society. In “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Peter Singer reaches out to the lucrative to help the misfortune. Although Singer believes that, the wealthy has a responsibility in providing help to the less fortunate, Singer conducts theories in which he explains how we as Americans spend more on luxuries rather than necessities. If the wealthy are fortunate enough to go out to fancy meals, they should be able to provide food for a poor family or medicine for the children. The negative attributes outweigh the positive due to the lack of supporting detail from the positive in which helps us better understand that helping people is the right thing to do rather than sitting back and doing nothing but demands that Americans donate every cent of their extra money to help the poor. According to Singer, if we provide a foundation for the misfortune we will not only make the world a better place but we will feel a relief inside that world poverty will soon end. The argument singer gives has no supporting details in which he tries and persuade the wealthy to donate money to the poor without clear thoughts.
Each person has positive and negative accountability in helping someone who is in need but also has a duty in helping themselves first. Singer starts by introducing the Brazilian film, “Central Station”, which involves a retired schoolteacher named Dora, who has the chance to make a thousand dollars. All she has to do is convince a homeless 9-year-old boy to accompany her to an address that was given to her. Dora receives the thousand dollars and spends it on a television. She finds out that the boy will be killed, and his organs will be...
... middle of paper ...
...ould be given away” (Singer, Peter). He did not give enough reasoning in why we should donate and why he is requesting such a large portion of one’s salary. He then goes on and says, “If we value the life of a child more than going to fancy restaurants, the next time we dine out we will know that we could have done something better with our money” (Singer, Peter).
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.
Works Cited
Singer, Peter. "The Singer Solution to World Poverty." The New York Times Magazine 05 Sept. 1999: 60-63. Web. 22 Nov. 2013.
Heroic priest Bartolomeo Las Casas, a fighter for the rights of Indians in real life is afraid, constantly looking around to the disorder in Cochabamba. Yes, and the whole film crew, so enthusiastically create a movie instantly is ready to quit, fearing riots taking place in the city. A petty producer Costa, who boasts that for 2 bucks, employs a large crowd, suddenly imbued with sympathy for the woman whose child has suffered in the riots, and spitting on the danger of going into the inferno to save the girl. Everyone is different. We may be bad, but we can and show themselves as heroes.
In order for her to make thousands of dollars she has to persuade a family about adopting a homeless nine year old boy. In the process she succeeds and successfully delivers the boy into his new family. She is then later on told about how the boy was too old to be adopted and will be killed for organ transplantation. As a consequence, Dora decides to take the boy back. Singer then explains, “In fact, an average family in the United states spends almost one-third of its income on things that are no more necessary to them than Dora’s new TV was to her” (2). Singer elaborates on the fact that we indeed spend so much of our money on things not essential to us. Singer also states, “Going out to nice restaurants, buying new clothes because the old ones are no longer stylish, vacationing at beach resorts - so much of our income is spent on things not essential to the preservation of our lives and health” (2). One might agree to Singer because he does state an important point on how most of us do spend our money on unnecessary things and instead should be given to charitable agencies. He believes that the money will save the life of children in need between life and
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
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
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 ...
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.
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.
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...
Peter Singer’s article “What Should a Billionaire Give- and What Should You?” focuses on how the wealthy could do more to relieve global poverty. Singer uses obvious examples of pathos by showing the example walking by a shallow pond and observing a small child drowning. Singer explains that everyone would save the child at minimal inconvenience, he also says ruining a pair of shoes at the expense of the child is not acceptable for a child to drown. This metaphor shows Singers heavy use of pathos within the article. Singer also exposes the nature of human nature when he our inclination to collect all the things we want with ignoring global poverty and us being responsible for the deaths of the children. Singer argues that wealthy people should
... to World Poverty", the speaker uses potent pathos, thought provoking rhetorical questions, ethos, and a assertive tone to demonstrate that it is in the best interest of man kind for those living lives of luxury to exchange opulence for altruistic lifestyles which leads to a more meaningful existence. Through his usage of rhetorical questions and aggressive tone the speaker is able encourage self reflection which leads to greater acceptance of his utilitarian philosophy. The speaker also utilizes a bold tone, allusions, and references to professionals such as Peter Unger to build his credibility as an author and to gain the trust and respect of his audience. Singer uses pathos along with his assertive tone to evoke anger from the audience and make them more willing to accept the idea that forsaking materialism is in the best interest of the world community.
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).
Singer’s argument may have swayed many people to donate their dispensable income to children in need despite the fact that it has many fundamental flaws. He argues that we should give away the majority of our earnings to charity. Since Singer wants the reader to donate such a large amount of money, the readers are given no choice but to contribute nothing whatsoever. His solution is not realistic and does not take into account the long-term financial impact this type of donation contribution system would have on a country’s economy.
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.