More handpicked essays just for you.
Main point of peter singer the singer solution to world poverty
Summarize peter singer’s argument in the singer solution to world poverty
Main point of peter singer the singer solution to world poverty
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Peter Singer, an Australian Moral philosopher, argues in his essay “ Famine, affluence and Morality”, that "If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we ought, morally, to do it.” Singer goes on to argue, essentially, that rich westerners ought to donate more than what is standard practice to humanitarian causes, and to do otherwise is immoral. Though few could doubt Singer's devotion to helping the poor around the world, Singer's essay ultimately fails. The best case scenario is that Singer is engaging in supreme wishful thinking, worst case is that he is being intellectually dishonest.
Of the many flaws in Peter Singer's argument, neglecting
…show more content…
simple economic theory is the one that stands out as the most dangerous. What Singer's solution basically calls for is wealth distribution spread out evenly amongst all people. The problem lies in the fact that his “solution” to the problem of poverty would in fact result in even more poverty. According to reports by World Bank, the entire world GDP stands at 60.6 trillion dollars. This is without a doubt a staggering amount. Nevertheless, when one takes this amount and spreads it out evenly amongst the entire population of the world,it would only net each individual a paltry sum of $9,055.55. Though this might seem like a lot to some, and would definitely increase some people's standard of living, ultimately this would cause the standard of living for the majority to worsen. Instead of a portion of the population not being able to afford first world standards, it would create a circumstance where a majority cannot afford even third world standards. Most would not be able to afford decent medical care, food or shelter. The government would not be able to tax everyone enough to keep up with the demand for services and goods. Individuals would not be able to start businesses and the result would be significant unemployment. Wealthy business owners may appear self interested when they set up factories in poor areas, but the bottom line is that he/she is contributing more to ending world poverty in a more sustainable manner by providing stable job opportunities to the poor and funneling western money to grossly impoverished areas. In fact, when humanitarian activists attempt to close down sweatshops or demand the immediate implementation of first world standards instead of campaigning for gradual implementation, they are usually met with resistance not only by the owners, but from the workers as well,who beg them not to eliminate the only opportunities they have to provide for their families. For many of the poor who live in areas where these factories are built, the factories themselves represent an increase in their standard of living, compared to the alternative options of prostitution, drug trafficking, and begging. Constantly giving and giving money to the poor is not the solution; creating and developing an environment where they can provide for themselves is. It is the epitome of the old saying: “Give a man a fish; he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish; he will eat for a lifetime.” Another error made evident throughout Singer's essay, is that he devotes much time attempting to build up a moral argument but never fully explains why the wealthy, or even moderately wealthy should feel morally obligated to donate their extra earnings to the poorer regions; only that it is something that we should feel guilty about if we don’t do.
Singer is like the Mother or Father who answers their child's question with the answer “because I said so”, and if he desires to convince those who possess wealth to give to those who do not, he needs to be a little more creative. Additionally, Singer relies on very vague definitions. He never clearly defines what things are necessary, and based on his examples he implies that only food, shelter, clothing, and medicine are important. Thus, funding of the fine arts, the sciences, education, innovation, and cultural development in general will disappear and all of these fields right along with it, causing even more jobs to disappear resulting in many people being forced to eek out a very meager existence …show more content…
indeed. The final major error that Peter Singer makes, is that He commits his readers to a state of indentured servitude.
If you are held liable for a problem that you did not create, then you have become indentured. Instead of allowing individuals to be responsible for their own life and allowing caring citizens to freely choose how they contribute to the success of humanity, he puts the troubles of the impoverished into the hands of those citizens and encumbers them further with a solution from which he states, “I can see no escape.” The main problem here with Singer’s solution is not his suggestion that we might be able to help the world’s poor by donating money to help them. The problem is with him obligating his readers to solving the problem. You cannot morally obligate someone to a solution for a problem he or she did not cause. Taking personal responsibility for something and being held personally responsible for something are two totally different things. You may decide to put yourself in a situation where you take on responsibility for a problem that you did not create, like adopting an overseas orphan, but Morally obligating someone to that is an egregious
mistake. The ultimate failure of Peter Singer in his essay is the fact that he ignores the feasibility of his solutions. If there is no chance of a plan ever working, then to propose it is simply a waste of time. Singer overs implies an extremely complex economic problem, formulating a solution that will crash and burn before it even gets off the ground because it relies on obligations that have no clear grounding in economics, morality or personal responsibility. If Peter Singer had proposed something more reasonable, and one which fit into the moral convictions of every person as he or she sees fit, then maybe his argument would work. Nevertheless, he does not do this, and he choses to ignore that resources on this planet are extremely finite. There is just not enough resources to clothes, medicate and house every single person on this planet.. Furthermore, hard-working individuals are not going to happily give up their money for reasons that are not supported by their moral convictions and not supported by the realities that surround the people who would be sacrificing their income.
In order to understand why O’Neill’s position is superior to Singer’s position on famine relief, I will present information on both sides. O’Neill gives a Kantian, duty-based explanation, that focuses on people 's intentions. One of the central claims of Kantian ethics is that one must never treat a person, either oneself or another, as mere
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
He views it as something that is more of an obligation or moral duty rather than an option. According to Singer’s view of charity, if more people were to adopt a radical view of charity, we will be able to prevent what is bad, rather than simply promoting what is good. People must give to charity whenever they can because suffering from a lack of food/hunger or extreme poverty is generally bad. Most people that aren’t suffering from extreme hunger or poverty generally have the means to give to charity, therefore, according to Singer, if we have the means to give to charity and we aren’t giving up anything of great moral worth then we must try to stop the suffering. 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 of 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
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
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
Singer’s utilitarian theory points out his main arguments for his statement “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” (375). He supports this by suggesting that were are morally obligated to prevent bad no matter the “proximity or distance” , “the number of other people who, in respect to that evil, are in the same situation we are” and that we ought to prevent hunger by sacrificing only their luxuries, which are of lesser moral importance (378). This meaning that we shouldn’t limit our aide to only those that we can see or that we know because morally there is no different between our obligation to them and our obligation to those overseas. Also, we should limit our aide to what we think ...
Singer starts with the base of assumption that suffering and death from lack of the essentials of food, water, shelter, and proper medical assistance are bad. I find no problem with accepting this assumption as it is consistent with most widely accepted moral theories. 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 admits that this would drastically change the way people live their lives. Instead of living with any disposable income, people would be giving money to those who are living under bad or unsurvivable conditions. But wi...
The writer behind “Singers Solution to World Poverty” advocates that U.S. citizens give away the majority of their dispensable income in order to end global suffering. Peter Singer makes numerous assumptions within his proposal about world poverty, and they are founded on the principle that Americans spend too much money on items and services that they do not need.
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...
He begins his argument with the fact that it is easier to avoid killing someone than to fail to save someone life. To begin his discussion of whether we have an obligation to assist, Singer formally outlines his argument into three premises. The first premise states, “if we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable significance, we ought to do it” (200). The second premise briefly states that absolute poverty is bad, and the third premise states there is some preventable absolute poverty without sacrificing anything of significance. Therefore, Singer concludes we ought to prevent some absolute poverty. To illustrate his principle, Singer presents a hypothetical example of if you were walking somewhere and saw a small child drowning in a shallow pond. You should be obligated to help save the child’s life, even if it means you will get your jeans dirty. In Singer’s terms, your jeans are not morally significant compared to the child losing their life; therefore, concluding you should save the
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.
For instance, if the theory which Singer promotes is the way in which we must judge morality, then it would appear that if one has $200, one should give it to Oxfam rather than spend it on dining out for a month: “what is one month's dining out, compared to a child's life?” (P. Singer 226). While one’s happiness would be increased if one dined out, it would be outweighed by the happiness one could cause by donating the money instead. Singer almost exclusively compares dining out for one’s own happiness with the happiness of the people one donates to therefore, he ignores other variables in one’s dining experience such as the restaurant staff, which one essentially contributes to when they dine out. In other words, Singer pays minimal heed to the economic effects which can potentially occur if all were to act in accordance to his moral philosophy as in if everyone were to abstain from eating out, restaurants would eventually lay off staff leading to unemployment, or simply put,
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.