Jan Narveson and Peter Singer have two conflicting ideas about world poverty and starvation. In Narveson’s “Feeding the Hungry”, he argues that “any help we give to the starving is entirely morally optional. We may give if we like, but such assistance is not morally required” (Narveson 231). Peter Singer basically has the complete opposite view about this issue. His argument in “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” is that “our ordinary patterns of spending money on ourselves are immoral” (Singer 223). He believes that world poverty could be solved if people in affluent nations donated at least ten to twenty percent of their yearly income. These two philosophers do a great job of supporting their arguments by using real world examples and even …show more content…
hypothetical situations. I believe using this strategy helps readers understand the issue that is being presented.
People like to read about topics that they can relate to, especially because world poverty and starvation are still issues in many impoverished countries. Both of these articles stir up a lot of controversy between people in wealthier nations such as the United States because not everyone is going to be willing to donate ten to twenty percent of their yearly income. I personally believe that it is not my moral obligation to feed the poor and hungry because I have my own life and my loved ones to worry about. I’m not saying we shouldn’t give anything to people in need of help, but there’s just so much you can do to help other people. Singer mentions that organizations like UNICEF and Oxfam America collect money to save the lives of children. Let’s say you donate $200 to one of these organizations. You might be able to help one “sickly 2-year-old transform into a healthy 6-year-old” but what happens after that? Does the 6-year-old child continue to be healthy? What can you do to make sure that your initial donation of $200 benefits the child in the long run? I’m sure you don’t just want to temporarily help a child in need (Singer
226). In Singer’s article, he brings up a story from Peter Unger’s book called “Living High and Letting Die”. This imaginary story is about a man named Bob who is about to retire so he buys a Bugatti with his life savings. The dilemma was that he parked his Bugatti near a train track so he could “walk up the track.” “Looking farther down the track, he sees the small figure of a child very likely to be killed by the runaway train” (Singer 225). The only thing he could do at that point was to derail the train so that it would go in the opposite direction, which would save the child’s life, but in doing so, his Bugatti would get destroyed. He decided not to derail the train because the Bugatti was his pride and joy so he didn’t want anything to happen to it. Singer’s argument is that the morally right thing to do in this particular situation is to save the child’s life, although the child is a stranger. He believes saving the child’s life is morally correct because you won’t feel guilty for the rest of your life. If most people were put in this situation, they probably wouldn’t try to save the child’s life, only because he was a stranger. Now if you personally knew who the child was, you would definitely save his life because it’s the right thing to do. It’s one thing to say you’ll save a stranger’s life but it’s another thing to actually be in a situation in which you have the opportunity to do it. In my personal opinion, if I were in Bob’s shoes, I wouldn’t have saved the child either because I worked hard all my life to invest in a luxurious car. This story about Bob and his Bugatti relates to Narveson’s article because he quotes writer James Rachels. Rachels says, “letting someone die is morally equivalent to killing them” (Narveson 233). I believe letting someone die and actually going out of your way to kill someone are two totally different things. I completely agree when Narveson says; “If we have a duty to feed the hungry and we don’t, then not doing so might be morally equivalent to killing them, perhaps---though I doubt that any proponent would seriously propose life imprisonment for failing to contribute to the cause of feeding the hungry” (Narveson 236). This statement made a lot of logical sense to me because someone who is guilty of first-degree murder is definitely going to be put in jail for life but if someone dies in an impoverished country because you didn’t donate money to charity, you won’t be charged for a crime. Not donating money for a charity is not a crime because you’re making a choice to live your own life, without worrying about other people’s; especially strangers. You can’t please everyone so you might as well just worry about your individual life and the life of your loved ones because at the end of the day, those are the people who care about you the most.
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.
The objection says that Singer’s analyses of moral duty conflicts with society’s current outlook on charity, which views it as not an obligation but a personal choice, where those who choose to give are praised for their philanthropy but those who choose not to give are not condemned (236). Singer retorts this objection by saying that we as a society need to essentially change our perspective of charity (236). What Singer means by this is that we need to drastically revise our ideas of what a moral duty is because, in agreement with Singer’s premise that we are morally obligated to help those who are suffering if it is within our power to do so without causing something equally as bad as the suffering to happen (231), charity should be considered as our moral responsibility and a mandatory duty for society
In the article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer argues that our conceptions on moral belief need to change. Specifically, He argues that giving to famine relief is not optional but a moral duty and failing to contribute money is immoral. As Singer puts it, “The way people in affluent countries react ... cannot be justified; indeed the whole way we look at moral issues-our moral conceptual scheme-needs to be altered and with it, the way of life that has come to be taken for granted in our society”(135). In other words Singer believes that unless you can find something wrong with the following argument you will have to drastically change your lifestyle and how you spend your money. Although some people might believe that his conclusion is too radical, Singer insists that it is the logical result of his argument. In sum, his view is that all affluent people should give much more to famine relief.
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.
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.
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...
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. Many 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 a little help or assistance. 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 low-income nations of eating and using offspring
...nd usually the institutions and churches do not have the resources to provide a safety net for starving people. What we have found when working with the World Bank is that the poor man's safety net, the best investment, is school feeding. And if you fill the cup with local agriculture from small farmers, you have a transformative effect. Many kids in the world can't go to school because they have to go beg and find a meal. But when that food is there, it's transformative. It costs less than 25 cents a day to change a kid's life.” (Sheeran)
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.
In the excerpt “Rich and Poor” from Peter Singer’s book “Practical Ethics,” Singer critiques how he portrays the way we respond to both absolute poverty and absolute affluence. Before coming to this class, I have always believed that donating or giving something of your own to help someone else is a moral decision. After reading Peter Singer’s argument that we are obligated to assist extreme poverty, I remain with the same beliefs I previously had. I will argue that Singer’s argument is not convincing. I will demonstrate that there are important differences between being obligated to save a small child from drowning (in his Shallow Pond Example) and being obligated to assist absolute poverty. These differences restrict his argument by analogy for the obligation to assist in the case of absolute poverty.
While images of starving orphans may touch the hearts of wealthy westerners, those same images may be deceiving the viewers to achieve higher donation rates. The cash is then distributed in a way that the organizations see fit. The donor learns nothing about the political and economical structure in the third world country that they have “supported,” and they continue about their day with no knowledge of where their money actually ended up. There is a lack of education, and as a result the financial gap between the rich and the poor continues to increase.