Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
How poverty affects children
Summary on the effects of poverty on children
Introduction on effects of poverty on children
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: How poverty affects children
From the book The Life You Can Save written by Peter Singer, he addressed that poverty is one of the biggest problem that most of the world faced today. Singer defined poverty as shortage of food for all of a year, do not have saving, can’t afford education, live in unstable house, and have no source of safe drinking water (5-6). This can lead to the death of children. On page 12, he questioned whether is that wrong if we spend money on things we don’t need while thousands of children die each day? He also asks how far does our obligation to the poor go? I personally think that it is not right for us to live comfortably while we know that there is some people out there who are suffering and needing our help. There is nothing wrong if we offer them some help whether directly or indirectly as long as it costs no harm to us. Also, helping poor people does not mean that we are not allowed to use the money that we earned for ourselves. …show more content…
According to Singer, 600 million people in South Asia are still living in extreme poverty today (7). If each people are willing to give and donate even a small amount of money, I believe that poverty can be solved. Singer notes that “if you [insert your name], took every penny you ever had and gave it to the poor of Africa, our national economy would not notice” (38). Assuming that every people in the world who afford to give are willing to donate $1 to the poor, we can help people who are living in hardship in many ways such as healthcare, education, and food. By donating to healthcare agency alone, you can help people in many ways. For example, if you are donating $100 to healthcare agency in developing country, you are actually saving a child’s life by helping them to receive a proper medical treatment for their disease. When she is recover from her disease, she can continue with her life such as going to school and getting a proper education. Once she is well educated, she will contribute her knowledge for the society. Also, her parents do not have to spend a lot of money to cure her illness. They can use the money for other things such as food and improving their standard of living. Thus, one good deed that you give results in many benefits to other people now and in future. I believe that every religion asks their believers to help people in need.
Helping the poor is a requirement for salvation in Christian and strongly emphasized in Judaism (Singer, 19-21). “Every year, Muslims above a minimum level of wealth must give zakat in proportion to their assets (not income),” (Singer,21). Zakat is a type of charity in Islam. There are two types of charity in Islam which is compulsory and optional. Zakat is a compulsory type of charity that every Muslims must give every year. There is a specific amount of money that each person must give for zakat for instance $15 per family member. Zakat al-fitr is given at the end of Ramadhan to help the poor and needy to celebrate Eid (a festival that Muslims around the world celebrate after Ramadhan) the same way like others. By receiving the money from zakat given by others, poor people can buy new clothes to celebrate eid and can buy some food to eat after a month of fasting. The optional type of charity is sadaqa. There is no specific amount of money for sadaqa. People can donate how much they want to donate. Sadaqa is not only in term of money. It can be other things such as donating clothes or toys to people who can’t afford it. The purpose of charity is Islam is not only to help the poor. It is also to help people to eliminate selfishness in in their personality. This is because, by giving to the poor, it shows that we care about people who are less fortunate than us and shows that we are willing to share a
part of our resources with them. Helping the poor should no be limited only on financial support. It can be in term of moral support, education, or economic support. Singer concludes that “giving people money or food breeds dependency” (36). Sometimes, developed countries can also help the developing countries by increasing the import quota. For example, United States can help Ghana by increasing the import quota of cocoa from that country so that they can increase the income of their country. By increasing the import quota of cocoa, the demand for cocoa from Ghana will increase. More workers will be needed to meet the increasing demand of cocoa. Thus, employment increase. As employment increase, people in Ghana will have income to support themselves and their family. In such a way, they can improve their standard of living and will not depends on others to support them. I believe in Chinese proverb saying that “give a man a fish he will eat for a day; teach him how to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.” Developed nation should guide the developing nation how to grab every opportunities that they have to increase their nation’s economy so that they can increase their standard of living. Also, we can also be a volunteer to teach children who’s their parents are not afford to send them to school. Thus, the children will not be lag behind in term of education. These children might be the leader of tomorrow. We should not be neglecting their right to receive a proper education even if their parents are not affording their education. They are the people that can change the fate of their nation in the future. It is not wrong for us to spend money that we earned for ourselves. But we should avoid it if we know that the things that we are going to spend leads to a waste. For example, if we are going for a vacation, we can just sit on economy class and pay less rather than spending more money on business class as all of the passengers will still arrive at the same destination regardless of which airline class they are using. The money that they allocate for business class’s seat can be use to donate for charity. We can still enjoy our vacation and at the same time we are helping people in need improving their life. In conclusion, it is our duty to help people in need without sacrificing things as nearly as important and without ignoring our own right to spend the money that we earned. Only this way we can help to diminish world’s poverty and reducing the gap between rich and poor. If we fail to meet our obligation in this area, we are sacrificing the lives of children who might be a leader which can make a change for a better society in the future.
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.
“The Singer Solution to World Poverty” by Peter Singer is a persuasive article trying to influence people to donate money to save children’s lives. Peter Singer stated, “Evolutionary psychologists tell us that human nature just isn’t sufficiently altruistic to make it plausible that many people will sacrifice so much for strangers… they would be wrong to draw moral conclusions to that fact”. First, Singer tells a story about a retired school teacher who doesn’t have extra money. Dora, the school teacher, is given a chance to make a thousand dollars by walking a homeless child to a house, in which she was given the address for. She then walks the child to the house, and then later Dora’s neighbors tell her that the child was probably killed
The concepts of poverty and wealth only have meaning relative to each other. While poverty can’t be eliminated without wealth becoming meaningless, the vast difference in living conditions between the wealthy and poor must be addressed. Andrew Carnegie, wealthy industrialist, and Peter Singer, moral philosopher, both argue that philanthropy should improve the living conditions of the poor. However, their approaches to philanthropy are vastly different, and both have inherent flaws. Singer’s philosophy that everyone has a duty to give away all their excess wealth until the point of “marginal utility” also removes the wealth incentive that drives societal productivity. On the other hand, Carnegie’s paternalistic policy of educating the poor 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.
Living in a third world country such as Jamaica gives you a firsthand experience on how much poverty has consumed the majority of the world. You’re driving along and you see a boy begging on the street asking a man in a mustang for some spare change. Should anyone be surprised if the man rolls up his window and ignore the poor boy? Would you have given the boy any of the spare change in the side of your car door?
In Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence and Morality,” Singer makes three claims about moral duty; that avoidable suffering is bad, that it is our moral obligation to help others in need, and that we should help those in suffering regardless of their distance to us or if others are in the same position as we are to help. First, I will elaborate on Singer’s arguments for each of these positions. Next, I will discuss two objections to Singer’s position, one that he debates in his writings and another that I examine on my own, and Singer’s responses to those objections. Then I will examine why Singer’s rebuttals to the objections were successful.
The Limit of our Moral Duty in regards to Famine Relief. In the article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer argues that our conceptions of moral belief need to change. Specifically, he argues that giving 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).
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
All different ethical theories can look at the same problem and come to different conclusions. Even philosopher’s such as Singer and Arthur understand and view ethical values differently. Peter Singer who uses the utilitarian theory believes that wealthy people should give to the degree that the wealthy person now someone in need themselves. John Arthur believes those in need or those suffering are only entitled to the help of the wealthy person if that person agrees to help, and that the property rights of the wealthy person declines the amount that Singer believes people should. People should help other people. I believe all people deserve the right to receive assistance and to not help those people would be morally wrong. However, I do not believe that the help that we are morally obligated to give should come at the cost of our own well-being.
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.
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.
Poverty is prevalent throughout the world around us. We watch television and see famous people begging us to sponsor a child for only ten dollars a month. We think in our own minds that ten dollars is only pocket change, but to those children and their families, that ten dollars is a large portion of their annual income. We see images of starving children in far away countries, and our hearts go out to them. But we really do not know the implications of poverty, why it exists, or even what we can do to help combat this giant problem in our world.
When my mother saw beggars standing at the intersection asking for help, my mom would try to help them by giving them the money, but my father would argue that you should not help because this would only encourage them to rely on other people’s help. My father says they should be helped by the government, instead of helped by individuals. It is not our responsibility to take care of them. I disagree with both of them because they do not look at or think about the problem closely enough. I think people are not only facing problems with wealth, but diseases, and war.
Has anyone ever considered thinking about what the world is really going through? How many people don’t have the necessities in order to survive? If so, what are these people going through? Poverty is the state of one who lacks a standard or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions. Sometimes events occur that changes a person’s perspective on life. Poverty is one that can have a huge effect on not only one person, but also the people around him/her. Over half of the world is going through this tragedy and we, being the ones who created it, have the responsibility to end it.