In this essay I will be arguing why a utilitarian could possibly disagree with Peter Singers Argument presented in “Famine, Affluence and Morality.” After reading such an interesting paper I must say as much as I disagreed with Singers viewpoints I almost found it difficult to object them with support. From a utilitarian point of view we are to maximize Happiness by reducing suffering. How can Giving possible make someone unhappy? But as I was thinking a saying came across my mind, “Two steps forward one step back”. The answer was rather simple, the very same thing that brings happiness to us is the same thing that can bring sorrow; Money. I’m not huge on politics, actually I hate politics but an argument such as this can be viewed from that perspective.
The argument stated by Peter Singer can be said to be one that entails two sides and therefore from a utilitarian point of view there are those who would agree with his stance as well as those who would not. The main foundation of the argument essentially states that individuals are able to do more than they are currently doing to help those in need. Countries that can be said to contribute largely to refugee funds such as Britain and Australia also spend more than they donate to these causes on infrastructure such as a new transport system or Opera house (Singer). By taking a look at the donations from such an angle these countries generosity can be said to take a drastic dive when compared to their other expenses. One could say that these governments care more about their transport system for example than they do about the millions of lives that they could affect with such money (Singer). However, in realistic terms especially from an economic point of view, it is essential tha...
... middle of paper ...
...gion. The best way to ensure that the government is in a position to help others is to ensure that it is in a stable economic position itself.
I end this essay by saying, it can be said that there are a few utilitarian individuals who would disagree with the stance that Peter Singer has taken based on the fact that individuals and other bodies cannot be expected to give more than they able to. Despite comparing their generosity with other funds it should be noted that it is these same investments that are more likely to provide the financial stability for them to continue their generous donations. A change in the individual mindset will also take time to accomplish and thus cannot be expected to take effect overnight.
Works Cited
Singer Peter. “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” Philosophy and Public
Affairs, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 229-243 [revised edition], 1972.
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.
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.
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.
A penny saved may be a penny earned, just as a penny spent may begin to better the world. Andrew Carnegie, a man known for his wealth, certainly knew the value of a dollar. His successful business ventures in the railroad industry, steel business, and in communications earned him his multimillion-dollar fortune. Much the opposite of greedy, Carnegie made sure he had what he needed to live a comfortable life, and put what remained of his fortune toward assistance for the general public and the betterment of their communities. He stressed the idea that generosity is superior to arrogance. Carnegie believes that for the wealthy to be generous to their community, rather than live an ostentatious lifestyle proves that they are truly rich in wealth and in heart. He also emphasized that money is most powerful in the hands of the earner, and not anyone else. In his retirement, Carnegie not only spent a great deal of time enriching his life by giving back; but also often wrote about business, money, and his stance on the importance of world peace. His essay “Wealth” presents what he believes are three common ways in which the wealthy typically distribute their money throughout their life and after death. Throughout his essay “Wealth”, Andrew Carnegie appeals to logos as he defines “rich” as having a great deal of wealth not only in materialistic terms, but also in leading an active philanthropic lifestyle. He solidifies this definition in his appeals to ethos and pathos with an emphasis on the rewards of philanthropy to the mind and body.
In the paper “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” Peter Singer defends the idea that is our moral duty to help others in need. Since there are other people in the world that are suffering and we our in a position to give, we are obligated to help create change in the world . In this paper I will explain Peter Singer’s view about how it is our moral duty to help those who are suffering in the world. Then I will present an implication of Peter Singer claim that implies how we are obligated to give upon to others that are suffering. I will then explain an argurment to provide a reason of why someone should support Peter Singer principle. Carried to a logical conclusion, Peter Singer aruement that his principle is clearly obligatory than superagory. I will consider the two actions that Peter Singer gives to distinguish duty versues chariy and argue that his principle should e consider a superagoty action. Since his
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
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 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
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.
... 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.
In this paper, I will argue against two articles which were written against Singer’s view, and against helping the poor countries in general. I will argue against John Arthur’s article Famine Relief and the Ideal Moral Code (1974 ) ,and Garrett Hardin’s article Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor ( 1976); I will show that both articles are exaggerating the negative consequences of aiding the poor, as well as building them on false assumptions. Both Arthur and Hardin are promoting the self-interest without considering the rights of others, and without considering that giving for famine relief means giving life to many children.
Hunger and poverty will always exist. Needy nations are stuck in a black hole, in which, there is no light at the end of the tunnel. This situation could be fixed, if the poor nations had assistance from those who could spare a few goods. Is it morally good for the better off nations to help or support those who are in need? Who benefits from this sponsorship in the long run? Poverty-stricken nations could seek relief, if the silk-stocking nations aid in supplying goods. Many of the moneyed nations are torn between helping or not, those who are less fortunate. Jonathan Swift and Garrett Hardin have two very different opinions on whether to aid those who were not born into riches. Swift uses a satire for the
But another very large portion of individuals like Peter Singer who also use the utilitarian way of thinking arrive at the conclusion that we should alleviate world hunger because it would increase the aggregate happiness in the world(866). Peter Singer uses the drowning child analogy to justify his position. He argues that if a person sees a child that’s drawing, and that person is capable of saving the child, that person is obligated to do so(866). In this situation the outcome is that the child is obviously happy that someone saved him, the person who saved the child is slightly less happy because his clothes were ruined, but nevertheless both are alive and well. Singer goes on to explain that we should apply this sort of thinking when it comes to world hunger, He says that if our situation allows us to help those in need, we are obligated to do so.(866) Singer and other individuals with the same understanding of the situation are basing their argument on the principle of utility, which essentially says that our actions should produce the greatest good for the greatest number (Mill, 752). The principle of utility is the only thing that matters when it comes to Utilitarianism, an action is right if it ends
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.