Peter Singer begins with a simple assumption, that suffering and death from a lack of food, shelter, and or medical care is bad. From this, Singer derives two forms of his argument, a stronger form and a weaker form. The stronger argument goes as such, “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.” The weaker version of the argument goes, “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it” (Singer, 614). The key distinction between the stronger and weaker argument is about sacrificing anything of moral significance or something of comparable moral significance. In Singer’s stronger argument, he makes the case that if one is able to promote good or prevent bad without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we must do so. In order to show his principle in practice Singer explains a graphic example of a drowning child. Singer argues that, if a person sees a child drowning in water, they should help that child. Singer’s …show more content…
Arthur argues that Singer fails to include property rights (not really true-Singer just does not see them as important), distance, the right to luxury items, Arthur also argues that Singer’s argument is too demanding. Arthur’s argument is that it is morally justified to have property rights that override others-even those in need. Arthur argues for people helping each other but only to a minimum extent-he does not believe people should be giving up property rights and their own luxuries in order to help others. Arthur argues that it is too demanding and unrealistic to assume people will be willing to give up past the minimum obligation of their property rights in order to help strangers. Arthur claims that people should not give up their property past a point that is
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
... 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.
“The Singer Solution to World Poverty” by Peter Singer is a persuasive article trying to influence people to donate money to save children’s lives. Peter Singer stated, “Evolutionary psychologists tell us that human nature just isn’t sufficiently altruistic to make it plausible that many people will sacrifice so much for strangers… they would be wrong to draw moral conclusions to that fact”. First, Singer tells a story about a retired school teacher who doesn’t have extra money. Dora, the school teacher, is given a chance to make a thousand dollars by walking a homeless child to a house, in which she was given the address for. She then walks the child to the house, and then later Dora’s neighbors tell her that the child was probably killed
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
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.
Peter Singer states two principles on the effects of famine, affluence, and morality which he feels that everyone should abide by. The first argument made is that lack of food, shelter and medicine is bad and can lead to feeling pain and death. I for one, could agree on this assumption just by analyzing it carefully. We see Singer on his thesis elaborate the causes of famine within East Bengal in 1970s. As governments and individuals within the world see the massive flooding’s and mismanagement of food issuing one hopes that we all as a society could take action to help stop such suffering and act on a situation like the impaired damage that happened with East Bengal. This then leads to Singer’s second argument; is if it is in our power to
Based off our agreement of this assumption, Singer moves on to the second part of his argument to say that if we are fortunate enough to have our basic needs for life fulfilled, then it is our moral obligation to help those who are not as fortunate as long as helping does not result in something happening that is equally as “bad,” which he defines as anything morally wrong or not promoting of moral goodness (231). For the third part of his argument, Singer points out that since it is now within our power to help people from all over the world, we have a moral obligation to give them our aid regardless of their distance from us (232). Because of our modern technologies, we
...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.
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
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.
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...
In addition, the author is sometimes being too forceful by telling the reader what to do. Since he uses such an emotional and forceful tone in the article, it is doubtful if Singer is successful at selling the audience on his point concerning this issue. He may have convinced many people to donate a particular amount of money for charity to poor countries, but his article is not effective enough to convince me. All human beings have the right to have luxury items even though many would argue that they are doing so at the expense of their morality.
Singer's argument appears to be mainly an appeal to logos, in his argument he reasons why he thinks it is morally required of people to give for famine relief and other needs. However, his argument relies heavily on pathos as well. The main thrust of his argument is this “If I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child dro...
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.
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.