Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays on selfishness
How selfishness is viewed in this world
Peter Singer's argument
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essays on selfishness
Peter Singer states that in order to solve world poverty we as a society need to donate more time, money, and effort to humanitarian causes. All money that one doesn't need for the basic resources to survive should be donated to the less fortunate. Therefore making it perfectly clear that you cannot judge anyone if you don't even donate the very money you possess. Peter Singer has a point when mentioning the cons to his argument. People are selfish. Some would rather spend the extra $200 on a nice dinner night than to donate it overseas to children that really need it. Also, two-thirds of someone's income they bring in are used for necessities, but the other one-third is used for a newer TV set, a vacation, even brand new clothes because the old ones went out of style. A scenario like Bob and his Bugatti is a perfect example. He was right. You cannot judge Bob for saving his car rather than the child if you won't even donate $200 to save a child's life. …show more content…
Singer makes you reflect on the decisions you've made and the decisions you were going to make for the future. To help push more money to kids overseas, he provides a phone number, urging the readers to pick up the phone and donate some sort of amount of money. Another scenario is a nice dinner night. Once you've made yourself feel good about donating some money overseas, you want to go out and celebrate with your spouse, but another red flag pops up. Instead of having a nice expensive dinner for one night, try skipping it for that month and instead donate even more money to
... to World Poverty", the speaker uses potent pathos, thought provoking rhetorical questions, ethos, and a assertive tone to demonstrate that it is in the best interest of man kind for those living lives of luxury to exchange opulence for altruistic lifestyles which leads to a more meaningful existence. Through his usage of rhetorical questions and aggressive tone the speaker is able encourage self reflection which leads to greater acceptance of his utilitarian philosophy. The speaker also utilizes a bold tone, allusions, and references to professionals such as Peter Unger to build his credibility as an author and to gain the trust and respect of his audience. Singer uses pathos along with his assertive tone to evoke anger from the audience and make them more willing to accept the idea that forsaking materialism is in the best interest of the world community.
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. While I agree with Singer’s argument in principle, I have a problem with his conclusion. In my view, the conclusion that Singer espouses is underdeveloped.
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...
Another weakness of Singer’s article is the aggressive language he uses throughout his piece of writing to influence the reader. For example, his use of forceful dialogue encourages people to give money in this following statement, Telling the reader what to do is not an effective way to convince an audience to make a contribution.
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...
Richard Miller finds Singer’s conclusion unrealistically demanding. He approaches the problem differently and claims that we should instead accept the Principle of Sympathy. According to Miller’s Principle, what morality directly demands is a sufficiently strong concern towards neediness. One’s disposition to help the needy is “sufficiently strong” if expressing greater concern would “impose a significant risk of worsening one’s life” . The Principle of Sympathy differs from Singer’s Principle of Sacrifice mainly in two ways. First, the Principle of Sympathy is a moral code that concerns more with an agent’s disposition to give rather than the amount of money he end...
Singer suggests that if people donated more money to these causes, countless children could be saved in the process. Even though Singer argues that poverty can be reduced by living an improved moral lifestyle, he focuses on the monetary aspects.
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.
Throughout the piece, Singer highlights that ‘we ought to give money away and it is wrong not to do so.’ This statement is not merely showing that it will be commendable to give money, but failing to give will be morally wrong. This obligatory nature of his argument urges people to donate the money that would otherwise be spent on luxuries. Singer’s profound conclusion has been supported by an analogy: What would you do if you see a small child drowning? There can be little doubt that, despite the inconvenience of getting our clothes muddy and shoes wet, people will attempt to save the child’s life. From this example, Singer builds on to argue that there is no moral difference between letting the child drown and
Rich people control everything and that simple idea is aiding and abetting the status quo. Early on, he asked that everyone donate two hundred dollars. Singer proved that it was enough to save a child’s life by using well-studied research. Yet he continues to argue that everyone donate any extra money to charity.
From "The Singer Solution to World Poverty." The New York Times Magazine (1999). Using several examples to present his case, Peter Singer debates that our spending on unessential items & luxuries, should be contributed to help solve poverty. Selfishness is among what comprise the core of Singers ethical thinking, from a very influential and controversial Philosopher Peter Singer portrays to his readers that people have motive to spend money on luxurious things in contrast to having the thought of sacrificing what you may have to help the needy. Peter Singer depicts two stories that question an individual’s morals.
These statistics add information necessary for the reader to visualize how much money people should or could donate. Singer proposes, “You shouldn’t take that cruise, redecorate the house, or get that pricey new suit. After all, a $1,000 suit could save five children’s lives” (933). This statement, gets people to realize how much he or she could be spending on a more useful cause. Singer’s use of statistics in his article makes it much easier for the reader to know how much money should be donated.
It is hard to deny that we have the moral obligation to do everything in our power to save the life of this child. Singer gets few arguments concerning this action; however, should that moral intuition necessarily extend to someone starving in Africa? This is comparing apples to oranges in a way because one can easily see the imminent danger which will result in certain death if one fails to act immediately. It is difficult to compare the results of the action of one individual when saving the child and the outcome for the poor in