Comparing Kant And Singer's Claim On Poverty

People in the United States take money for granted, corresponding to any other country in the world. We as a country can't seem to comprehend that people across the world are starving to death, and are making a smaller amount of money in a day than a casual American will spend on a McDonald's happy meal . America is surprisingly only the 3rd most giving country in the world, which to some may find that circumstance to be pretty decent. However with all the resources we have in this country, many could find this as an embarrassing statistic. Throughout this reading, I will introduce two well-known philosophers named Immanuel Kant and Peter Singer, and try to put into place their distinctions in the way people are spending their money in America, and how they claim we can save suffering people’s lives by maximizing possessions for the whole world. With that being said it may not provide one with happiness, yet it doesn't mean that one

should not proceed with the task. I will back up their points that one should be able to help the underprivileged people with the benefits that we have here in America, and across richer nations. I will also characterize the claim that one should be able to sacrifice their own assets for the betterment of our society.

Peter Singer is a well-known philosopher with famous work on Applied Ethics, one of his most substantial works, “The Life You Can Save.” In this article it's about trying to help those who are in absolute poverty. Peter Singer’s argument claims that if you have the means to help people in any way possible, you are morally obligated to do so. He also claims that spending money on luxury items like expensive meals, clothing, movies, concerts, and vacations could all be money spent towards saving children's lives around the world. Now he’s not saying don’t ever do anything entertaining. Nevertheless, 1.4 billion people live on less than one dollar and twenty five cents a day, and almost 3 billion live on less than two dollars and fifty cents a day. Singer claims that if we could just give a minimal amount of capital to folks in poverty, it could help salvage their lives. People are emaciated and dying in agonizing ways. Records show that 27,000 people are dying of starvation a day. (Singer, 2) According to Singer, by spending money on luxury items, rather than helping those in dire need is not attaining in all ways possible. Many people are wasting a crucial amount of money on goods resembling to that extra glass of wine that one doesn’t drink all the way, or that desert one gets after a big meal, yet only eats one or two bites. Those are the type of invaluable goods that could be spent towards someone who is facing extreme adversity. Singer strictly argues on how it is different when a person is spending all this money on things of their own choice, while people across the world have no way of any income, no hope at all, and are losing their lives from starvation. People that have the opportunity, like us fellow Americans, could help these less fortunate individuals out by even just giving a modest amount of money. If one knows how much these people are suffering, then how is it any different than watching a kid drown in a pond and not doing anything about it? We as people in this country are aware of the many people that are dying every day of oppression, and a majority of the public is doing nothing about it.

Some Americans claim that they're “poor,” but 97% of people own a color TV, three quarters of our population owns a car, and all of our citizens have access to health care. (Singer, 4) People in prosperous countries are blindsided by what actually being broke really means. They have no comparison to what an actual tough life is. Even the life expectancy of the richer nations has a drastic change, is around seventy eight. In spite of that, in most third world countries the life expectancy is below fifty. In wealthier nations, fewer than one in one hundred children die before the age of five, while in most poor countries it's about one in five die before the age of five. (Singer, 4) All Singer is saying is if every person could just give a small portion of money to these helpless starving people, it would help our world population, and health as a whole tremendously.

With every philosophical argument, there are claims against the controversial topic. One might question Singers claim and wonder how donating a portion of money to those in need could actually make a sizeable difference to the vast number of people in poverty. Even if one gave an abundance of money, goods, or materials how could they help the billions of anguished people in the world? Someone like Singer would hope people would follow in suit with those actions. However, one can’t guarantee that people will pay it forward with good intentions. Nevertheless, just because other people aren’t going to help the deprived people, doesn’t mean one shouldn’t assist them. According to Singer, if you are not sacrificing anything of moral importance, you ought to do the deed.

One of Singer's quality claims is what if you were in the people’s shoes, and living on less than two dollars and fifty cents a day, starving to death, having horrible diseases pop up correspondent to malaria, diarrhea, and measles. What if God placed you in those deprived spots of Africa, or Southeast Asia, wouldn’t you want someone who has plenty of wealth, to be donating some sort of funds to help save your life? We as people were all created equal, there is not one superior human being. There might be people who have more money than others, and people who don’t have as much money, but money shouldn’t be the thing that we base people off of. It should be more about everyone living a healthy and happy life full of integrity. There are people across the world that can’t have these possessions. Bottom line is they don’t have the resources needed. Whether those resources are education, food, housing, or plenty of other goods that these suffering people just don't have access to. They have no optimism, while some people in America are living in twenty five million dollar houses, have a private jet, and an extravagant yacht. Some of the privileged people don’t even care to give a single dollar to assist these people. I just can’t fathom that so many people can look the other way on these sorts of terrible miseries.

Immanuel Kant is also very prominent about moral principles. He wants people to withstand actions with decency, and good will. I believe Kant would agree with Singer’s dispute on helping the impoverished out. Kant believes that people are endowed with a certain dignity that beats all price. He says dignity obligates people to treat people in a certain way, and refrain from conducting people in a derogatory manner. According to Kant we have actions required of us that are not about for filling our own happiness. Therefore, Kant believes in generosity, even if that action is not happiness to the specific individual. We as a society are morally required to help less fortunate people out in any way we can. Conferring from Kant, that includes acting with pride, moral, and motivation. If one cannot act in this manner, they are not acting in good will, therefore they are not living a life of honor.

Throughout this reading, I hope one gained the knowledge necessary to understand Peter Singer’s claim on poverty, and why he feels that certain way.

Also the strengths, and weaknesses that came along with his argument. First the claim against Singer’s argument, how one person can't aid three billion people on their own, so it would barely make any change if that one person helped. A claim for his argument is what if God put you in the spot that the starving, suffering people are in? You would definitely want assistance from the people that have more fortuity in wealthier nations. I sided with Singer for the reasoning that we are letting people die, that could be living right now. I believe that these people deserve to be conserved. If they receive money, they could feed their families, and maybe put forward enough money to start saving for an education. Everyone deserves to have opportunity, and these people in these suffering nations simply don't have it. What is happening to these people is a moral sin, and a

catastrophe.