Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
What causes poverty
Causes of poverty in developing countries
Root causes of poverty in the world
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: What causes poverty
The Australian philosopher Peter Singer, believes that when we refuse to help end world hunger, we become murders. He believes that it is are moral obligation as Americans who live comfortable lives, to help “the worlds poor” (Singer 1). It is wrong to continue to live a luxuries life, when we know that others are fighting for the mere chance to survive. In Peter Singer’s “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” he compares us Americans to two fictitious characters Dora and Bob, due to the fact that we as Dora and Bob chose luxuries over the chance to help people suffering from life-threatening poverty. Peter Singer compares us to a fictitious character from a Brazilian film called “Central Stations.” He believes that our actions are identical to Dora’s actions in the film. He calls us Americans out on the fact that we “spend one-third of [our] income on things not essential to the preservation of our lives and health” (Singer 1). He compares this to Dora giving up the “9-year old boy” (Singer 1) she We do not shine light on the gruesome idea that it is in our hands to change the fate of many dying children because it is normal behavior not to. We, Americans, have become a predictable collective group as we become a domino effect in the way that we allow each generation to affect the next creating what we know to be as normal behavior. By not donating money and turning the other cheek, we do not blame each other for allowing the worlds poverty to continue to be a problem because it is normal behavior. Peter Singers solution goes against our taught behavior, and simply states that “whatever money [we] spend on luxuries, not necessities, should be given
In Janet Poppendieck's “Want Amid Plenty: From Hunger To Inequality” she argues that America puts excessive focus upon hunger issues among the poor when there are many other important issues that go unnoticed. Poppendieck believes that it is time to find a way to shift the discourse from undernutrition to unfairness, from hunger to inequality. In today's society, there are many food banks, food drives, soup kitchens, etc. Food is extremely abundant in America, therefore Poppendieck's statement is proven true when she states that there is too much focus on hunger. Throughout this text, she strongly supports her claims about hunger, equality, and poverty in general.
In this paper I will examine both Peter Singer’s and Onora O 'Neill 's positions on famine relief. I will argue that O’Neill’s position is more suitable than Singer’s extreme standpoint. First I will, present O’Neill’s argument. I will then present a possible counter-argument to one of my premises. Finally I will show how this counter-argument is fallacious and how O’Neill’s argument in fact goes through.
... 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.
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
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. 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 as a society to give to charity, however, we should if we want to.
Singer, Peter. “The Singer Solution to World Poverty.” in The Allyn & Bacon Guide to Writing. John D. Ramage, John C. Bean, and June Johnson. 5th ed. New York: Longman, 2009. 545-49. Print.
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 this essay we are going to analyze the main ideas included in “Feeding the Hungry” by Jan Narveson and the main aspects included in “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” by Peter Singer. In “Feeding the Hungry” the author stated that each of us has a right to liberty that includes choosing whether or not to help those who are starving. On the contrary in “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” the author argues that affluent people ought to give large amounts of money to help the world’s poor.
Moral obligation in Peter Singer’s Famine, Affluence, and Morality in contrast to John Arthur’s World Hunger and Moral Obligation: The case against Singer
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.
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, Peter. “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.” Current Issues and Enduring Questions. 8th ed. Eds. Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2008. 7-15. Print.
In the article, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Pete Singer begins his argument with the notion that everyone believes that suffering and dying from lack of food and medical care are bad things. Furthermore, if we as humans know this to be bad then we have a responsibility to prevent bad things from occurring, according to singer. Throughout the article Singer will explain the distance in which one should reach out to, the amount of aid an individual should provide should provide.
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.