Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Peter singer basic argument
Peter singer basic argument
Peter singer basic argument
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Peter singer basic argument
Autocratic Plight for World Poverty
We spend our money gratuitously. Americans revolve their economy around consumerism. "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" argues that people should donate a significant portion of their income to the poor. The author poses hypotheticals and questions whether the reader will give what they don’t need. The imaginary settings, though weak and petty, are thought-provoking and grab the reader’s attention. Yet in the self-centered society we live, not only are our spending habits necessary, but Peter Singer’s arguments are a turn-off and work to dissuade rather than encourage donations.
Singer opens his arguments with Dora, a character in the Brazilian film Central Station, deciding to sell a homeless child
…show more content…
The idea that an imaginary character deciding to save his car rather than a child’s life compares to someone being responsible for the death of an actual child for not donating money is preposterous. His idea that the consequences of inaction result in the death of a child is wrong. I would argue that this particular child would die anyway. Our prosperity has little to do with someone else’s misfortune. We are not directly or indirectly responsible for a child’s death due to …show more content…
Rich people control everything and that simple idea is aiding and abetting the status quo. Early on, he asked that everyone donate two hundred dollars. Singer proved that it was enough to save a child’s life by using well-studied research. Yet he continues to argue that everyone donate any extra money to charity. This is such an autocratic assertion. Not only is such a demand derailing for anyone who feels the least bit philanthropic, but it also ignores how economics work. Reinvesting money in an economy is what will create a job in order to save future families from poverty. Sending money without a return to a rich non-profit will simply enrich the wealthy. The fraction of a penny that a family might receive from a donation may save them for a day, but if already destined for a morbid ending, you cannot simply rescue someone by donating to a large organization. You can, however, save future families by investing that money in an already well-established economy, where you receive something in return, in order to help create future
In the essay, "The Singer Solution to World Poverty", Singer uses pathos and an assertive tone to emphasize the dire moral issues plaguing the United States and to demonstrate to the audience that their money would be best spent helping others. Singer begins his essay with an allusion to the Brazilian film, Central Station, when he says, "He (a homeless boy) will be killed and his organs sold for transplantation" Singer uses his bold tone to bluntly state that an innocent boy, like an old car, will be used as spare parts. Since the boy was an innocent child, Singer evokes anger from the audience who resents Dora, the one who sold the boy, for her immoral decision to trade the boy's life for something as menial as a television set. The audience, in reaction to the emotional appeal and bold tone, find themselves wishing there was a way that they could help the boy and makes...
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 ...
In Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence and Morality,” Singer makes three claims about moral duty; that avoidable suffering is bad, that it is our moral obligation to help others in need, and that we should help those in suffering regardless of their distance to us or if others are in the same position as we are to help. First, I will elaborate on Singer’s arguments for each of these positions. Next, I will discuss two objections to Singer’s position, one that he debates in his writings and another that I examine on my own, and Singer’s responses to those objections. Then I will examine why Singer’s rebuttals to the objections were successful.
This paper explores Peter Singer’s argument, in Famine, Affluence, and Morality, that we have morally required obligations to those in need. The explanation of his argument and conclusion, if accepted, would dictate changes to our lifestyle as well as our conceptions of duty and charity, and would be particularly demanding of the affluent. In response to the central case presented by Singer, John Kekes offers his version, which he labels the and points out some objections. Revisions of the principle provide some response to the objections, but raise additional problems. Yet, in the end, the revisions provide support for Singer’s basic argument that, in some way, we ought to help those in 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 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.
Peter Singer's paper “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”has made a drastic impact in modern applied ethics. The simple nature of the paper makes for an easy read, yet the point clearly set out by Singer is at ends with the targeted audiences' popular beliefs. Although most will object to Singer's idea by throwing away a basic principle of most moral theories, I wish to deny Singer's solution by showing that the ability to apply Singer's conclusion is not reasonable and does not address the problem's core.
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.
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 states that in order to solve world poverty we as a society need to donate more time, money, and effort to humanitarian causes. All money that one doesn't need for the basic resources to survive should be donated to the less fortunate. Therefore making it perfectly clear that you cannot judge anyone if you don't even donate the very money you possess. Peter Singer has a point when mentioning the cons to his argument. People are selfish.
“The Singer Solution to World Poverty” by Peter Singer addresses the issues of world poverty by proposing a solution in a Utilitarian perspective. Singer first addresses the reader by providing a summary of the film Central Station to discuss how a woman delivered a homeless boy to wealthy foreigners in order to purchase a T.V. set. But she realized that the child’s organs would be sold for transplants and decided to take the child back. Singer provides another example where a man (close to retirement) owned a Bugatti car, had the choice to save the boy by having his car be struck by a train or let the boy die, as a result, the boy dies from his decision. These serve as the foundation of Singer’s solution arguing that people should only spend their money on necessities, become less materialistic, and donate the remainder of their money to a charity that helps children in underprivileged areas.
While the solution to world poverty which has been proposed by Singer, who is a philosopher and bioethics professor, is thought-provoking due to its strong idealism,
From "The Singer Solution to World Poverty." The New York Times Magazine (1999). Using several examples to present his case, Peter Singer debates that our spending on unessential items & luxuries, should be contributed to help solve poverty. Selfishness is among what comprise the core of Singers ethical thinking, from a very influential and controversial Philosopher Peter Singer portrays to his readers that people have motive to spend money on luxurious things in contrast to having the thought of sacrificing what you may have to help the needy. Peter Singer depicts two stories that question an individual’s morals.
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.