Peter Singer argues that if we have the ability to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything of similar moral importance, we ought to do it. He states that in a presentation of TED, that widespread death from starvation, diseases and many other death related issues, are still taking victims all around the world but though the life expectancy has been getting better since 2011. Since Singer believes that poorness is bad, we are (related to what’s right and wrong) obligated to help the poor in poorer countries. He believes that we can 'Sacrifice' part of our salary without causing any complications to our life especially comparably bad to other parts of the world. He points out that we are morally wrong if we spend unnecessary Hardin, as I understand it, is arguing that for the sake of the global economy, all nations should look after themselves because the richer countries cannot afford to help all of those who are struggling. He uses the metaphor of a lifeboat with only 10 places and 100 people in the water. In "Life Boat: The Case Against Helping the Poor," Hardin presents a different metaphor, that of a lifeboat, to argue that we are under no (need and responsibility to do what’s right) to help the poor. In this paper, I will agree and disagree with Hardin's viewpoint on helping the Rich people, is a lifeboat floating at sea, with the world's poor swimming around it. Hardin claims that, since the lifeboats belonging to rich countries have a limited carrying capacity because of (not having enough of what’s needed), taking too many poor in is self-destructive, since the lifeboat will sink, so rich countries are under no (need and responsibility to do what’s right) to rescue more than a few "lucky ones." What’s more, since the population growth rate of poor countries is much higher than that of rich countries, and given that some poor countries depend on handouts to turn away/avoid frequent human serious problem, the continuous supply of aid by the rich to the poor will overwhelm the planet's resources, leading to "the total collapse of the whole system, producing a terrible event," if the population of the poor isn't kept in check by natural cycles of death. Therefore, rich countries are under no (need and responsibility to do what’s right) to help the poor.. In my own opinion, Hardin views in an economically stand point, the U.S. has spent billions of dollars in Foreign Aid which saved many lives. During the tsunami in the Philippines the U.S. was first to answer delivering food and many other various items spending $178 millions of dollars. It brought stability internally and helped in
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.
To describe Peter Singer’s main argument for why we have an obligation to help people in need, I will
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 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.
Quote: “If you’re in trouble or hurt or in need-- go to poor people. They’re the only ones that’ll help-- the only ones” (376).
... aid across the world. As we have established that we do have an obligation to redistribute globally in a cosmopolitan perspective, distributing wealth however we may need to rethink what the best assistance is. Amaryta Sen conveys that before sending aid to the third world state, we would need to fully understand the limitation of freedom in the country. Redistributing wealth to global countries requires it to be evaluated by the economic shortage that they are suffering and to see whether it will be efficient in the long run. The more effective ways to contribute would be to international relief agencies or NGO’s that would pursue international development projects to help those in poverty or the alternative option by Tom Campbell’s idea of a ‘Global humanitarian levy’ which suggests a more appropriate taxation on all citizens to collectively aid those in need.
Most people feel that they should help the needy in some way or another. The problem is how to help them. This problem generally arises when there is a person sitting on the side of the road in battered clothes with a cardboard sign asking for some form of help, almost always in the form of money. Yet something makes the giver uneasy. What will they do with this money? Do they need this money? Will it really help them? The truth of the matter is, it won't. However, there are things that can be done to help the needy. Giving money to a reliable foundation will help the helpless, something that transferring money from a pocket to a man's tin can will never do.
People today look at the poor with scorn in their eyes. Not to mention they get grossed out when they have to even walk by them on the streets. Today, you see the poor begging on the streets and you can’t help but feel sorry for them. Some people though, think that the poor are the sorriest bunch of suckers around and that their lives have no meaning. But, according to Henry David Thoreau, the poor have some of the best lives compared to all of us that aren’t. The article, “Comfort Zones” quotes the bible saying, “‘This poor widow put more than all the other contributors’ (Mk 12:43)” The poor contributes more than you know. Henry David Thoreau’s “Walden” greatly describes how the poor are better because life if still great, they get independence, and money doesn’t help buy your soul.
Peter Singer, in his influential essay “Famine, Affluence and Poverty”, argues that affluent people have the moral obligation to contribute to charity in order to save the poor from suffering; any spending on luxuries would be unjustified as long as it can be used to improve other’s lives. In developing his argument, Singer involved one crucial premise known as the Principle of Sacrifice—“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”. To show that such principle has the property to be held universal, Singer refers to a scenario in which a person witnesses a drowning child. Most people, by common sense, hold that the witness has the moral duty to rescue the child despite some potential costs. Since letting people die in poverty is no different from watching a child drowning without offering any help, Singer goes on and concludes that affluent people have the moral duty to keep donating to the poor until an increment of money makes no further contribution.
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
Collier’s thesis is basically why poor countries are poor and what can first world countries as in the United States do about it. He breaks the book into five parts. The first part deals with defining what the actual issue is and he labels it “Falling Behind and Falling Apart”. The second part is talking about four traps that keep the bottom billion in their dilemma. He breaks it down with the conflict trap, the natural resource trap, the landlocked with bad neighbors trap, and the bad governance in a small country trap. The third part talks about globalization. Collier believes that Globalization is part of the reason why the bottom billion countries are continuing to sink. Part four of the book deals with strategies that he believes will help fix the major problems of the bottom billion. Collier breaks this into four topics: Aid to the rescue, ...
If these developed countries continue to prejudge underdeveloped countries by wealth or other conditions, when people are faced with serious problems in society, these problems become global. By helping each other, all countries offer hope and compassion, and share new knowledge with each other. Therefore, people all over the world suffer less, because they know they are not alone.
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.