In Defense of Singer’s Shallow Pond Argument Peter Singer is known in philosophy for many different writings, one of them is his “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” which includes his shallow pond argument. Many philosophers have argued against and for his shallow pond argument, for many different reasons. I think his argument is sound and will attempt to defend it against criticism here.
In Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” (1972), he describes how he believes everyone’s approach to global poverty should be. He starts by describing how people in many places in the world are dying from hunger, having no shelter or access to medical care. Other people have the ability to stop this from happening if they make the right decisions. He
…show more content…
He explains that the shallow pond argument is simplistic and encourages an oversimplified view of worldwide poverty. Before going into detail he goes over how Singer’s work still has value and has benefitted the philosophy community. Singer’s work has brought the discussion of poverty into philosophy, in which there was almost no one talking about it before, and Singer has kept the focus of the nation-state as the boundary. These have kept the focus on human rights and a globalized context, he says. He then describes why he thinks the shallow pond argument is incomplete or lacking in its entirety, such as the people that are the ones in poverty. They would probably be offended to hear themselves being likened to a helpless drowning child, it insinuates that they have no control over their fate and wellbeing. He says that these families are not living “hand to mouth”, or consuming any and all resources as they become available, rather they’re managing their money and expenses as best as they can. The argument also has no context whatsoever, there is no race, gender, power or anything else involved, all of which are heavily involved with people who are actually in poverty. Poverty can be purposeful or an outcome of war or some other event. It lacks institutions, who owns the pond? Is someone responsible for the pond and anything that happens regarding the pond? He then explains why the argument has negative implications about poverty. The first is that it encourages that people do what is the easiest and requires the least amount of thinking, because in the case of the drowning child, you should act fast, but poverty is more complex and a plan should be more thought out. It also encourages that wealthy westerners are the “saviors” of the poor, which he
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
Before anything else though, it is essential to understand Singer’s argument. He starts his paper by talking about the situation in East Bengal and how there was a dearth of foreign aid to help alleviate the suffering of the victims of the famine there. He then broadens the scope of his article to talk about people suffering on a global level. Singer’s argument is founded on the fact that people starving, suffering and dying is something bad, and that prevention of any suffering is something we ought to do, provided we are not forgoing something of “comparable moral significance” (Singer 24). He also gives a weak version of this theory, which is that we must prevent suffering as long as we are not “sacrificing anything morally significant” (Singer 24). However, he later goes on to say that he personally favors the first, stronger principle.
The City Council of Boomtown, a fictitious city, wants to expand their current borders and is considering building new houses and apartments on one of three locations: Green Hill, Delta Wetlands, or Seaside Cliff. Though each of the landforms have differing advantages and disadvantages, the cliff would be the best place to build. It is located along the East Bay, north of the Rolling River. Seaside Cliff has the most stable land and the easiest solutions to its problems. It is also the least flood-prone and damaging to the environment. The most logical location to build in Boomtown is Seaside Cliff for several reasons.
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
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.
In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer is trying to argue that “the way people in relatively affluent countries react to a situation… cannot be justified; indeed,… 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”(Singer 230). Peter Singer provides striking examples to show the reader how realistic his arguments are. In this paper, I will briefly give a summary of Peter Singer’s argument and the assumptions that follow, adding personal opinions for or against Peter’s statements. I hope that within this paper, I am able to be clearly show you my thoughts in regards to Singer.
In order to understand why O’Neill’s position is superior to Singer’s position on famine relief, I will present information on both sides. O’Neill gives a Kantian, duty-based explanation, that focuses on people 's intentions. One of the central claims of Kantian ethics is that one must never treat a person, either oneself or another, as mere
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.
In “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Singer argues that all households should donate a percentage of their income to charity. The majority of the American population is satisfied with donating little to nothing to those in need, but seldom rethink the purchase of the luxury items. It is a commonly accepted fact that those who work for their earnings are deserving of the monies that they receive. Unfortunately, those in third world countries that don’t have the same resources and opportunities are unable to sustain their livelihood. Some children in third world countries suffer from deprivation of food and shelter while those that are fortunate enough to have jobs are paid only cents a day.
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.
“Overfishing occurs when more fish are caught than the population can replace through natural reproduction”. CITATION
From the book The Life You Can Save written by Peter Singer, he addressed that poverty is one of the biggest problem that most of the world faced today. Singer defined poverty as shortage of food for all of a year, do not have saving, can’t afford education, live in unstable house, and have no source of safe drinking water (5-6). This can lead to the death of children. On page 12, he questioned whether is that wrong if we spend money on things we don’t need while thousands of children die each day? He also asks how far does our obligation to the poor go? I personally think that it is not right for us to live comfortably while we know that there is some people out there who are suffering and needing our help. There is nothing wrong if we offer them some help whether directly or indirectly as long as it costs no harm to us. Also, helping poor people does not mean that we are not allowed to use the money that we earned for ourselves.
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.