Peter Singer's Argument Analysis

1016 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Poverty in developing countries

The obligations of people in well developed nations to help the world’s poorest people

The purpose of this essay is to investigate and evaluate the contemporary ethical issue of the obligations of people in developed nations to help the world’s poorest people. In this essay I will provide an evaluation of Peter Singer’s idea about helping others in need and will investigate his thoughts on the matter and his reasoning behind it.
As Peter Singer States ‘giving to charity is neither charitable nor generous; it is no more than our duty and not giving would be wrong’, Peter Singer, BBC, Ethics guide, 2014, He believes that well developed countries should be obligated to help others in need. His reasons behind this are as follows; His first reason …show more content…

His argument goes as follows. If you are part of a well-developed nation, then it should be your obligation to help out others in poorer countries. If his argument was just targeted at people in richer countries to help out, then I would disagree with him. Just because you live in a wealthier country does not mean you are in the financial position to help out or give charity. Though in the quote, ‘If you are living comfortably while others are dying from easily preventable diseases, and you are doing nothing about it, there is something wrong with your behaviour’, Peter Singer, Humility Kills, Jewcy, May 2007, He states that if you are living comfortably, referring to being in a financial position to do something like give charity. Then I would agree with his argument. If it was only referring to those who are in the position to help others in need, not only if they are in a well-developed country. His reason about this obligation, of pain should not be caused by the lack of food, shelter or medical care is definitely easy to agree on. If people in wealthier countries have the access to these necessities, then why should those in poorer nations not have the same privileges? Just because they were born if a different country. His second reason, ‘if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening without thereby sacrificing something of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it. But in this statement, who’s to say what’s of comparable moral importance. How is it determined if it’s sacrificing something or if it is not. And who’s to say what Singer might think sacrificing is less important than something else is what others will necessarily think. They might not share the same viewpoint and therefore not help out if the consequence to them is what they think is worse. But if by chance it is not of comparable moral importance, then yes, I would agree with his argument that we ought morally to do it.

Show More
Related

  • Analysis Of Peter Singer And Onora O Neill's Position On Famine Relief

    1016 Words  | 3 Pages

    Bentham, an act utilitarian, created a measurement called hedonic calculus that calculates if an action is wrong or right by determining factors like intensity and duration of pleasure. Singer strains on the importance of the act by the number of people affected from it. He believes that every human being is equal. Therefore, geographical and emotional closeness is irrelevant to moral responsibilities. He states that “death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad” and that if you disagree “read no further” because it would be hard to convince anyone otherwise (P. 231 Singer). He argues that if we can prevent bad things from occurring without “sacrificing anything of moral importance” it’s our moral obligation to act on it (P.231 Singer). What is not clear is as to how much we should give, as we should keep in mind that not everyone in the world gives aid to famine relief so we must take that into account. Singer then tries to make it easier on us by stating that instead of negotiating something of comparable ethical significance in his second premise, it can be of any moral significance. He also believes that if one is to ignore a duty to aid others then he or she is no different than an individual who acts wrong. This is because he believes that it is our moral responsibility to do good deeds and people dying is wrong

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Peter Singer's The Obligation To Assist

    704 Words  | 2 Pages

    Peter Singer’s position in his work “The Obligation to Assist”, is that all people are morally obligated to help one another without it causing any additional harm. He refers to “comparable moral significance”, which means that helping another must not cause anything worse to happen, or be a morally wrong action in and of itself, and must also be done if a comparably awful event can be stopped. His first premise is that if absolute poverty is wrong, and it can be stopped without worse consequences, then it should be stopped altogether. His second premise is that if you were to see a drowning child, you would help them out of the lake, even if your coat happens to get wet. His third premise is that morals do not need to be examined, as the need to help others should be logical without examining the morality behind it. His final premise is that the First World is rich enough to reduce poverty, and can therefore feel obligated to help. The implication of this position is that no matter what situation surrounds the person in need of help, another person would be obligated to assist them. Thusly, people who could help without having to forgo “comparable moral significance” and refrain from

    Read More

  • Tracy Kidder’s Mountains Beyond Mountains

    1957 Words  | 4 Pages

    “The only real nation is humanity” (Farmer 123). This quote represents a huge message that is received in, Tracy Kidder’s, Mountains Beyond Mountains. This book argues that universal healthcare is a right and not a privilege. Kidder’s book also shows the audience that every individual, no matter what the circumstances, is entitled to receive quality health care. In the book Kidder represents, Paul Farmer, a man who spends his entire life determined to improve the health care of impoverished areas around the world, namely Haiti, one of the poorest nations in the world. By doing this the audience learns of the horrible circumstances, and the lack of quality health care that nations like Haiti live with everyday, why every person has the right to healthcare no matter what, and how cost effectiveness should not determine whether or not these people get to live or die. Two texts that also argue this idea are Monte Leach’s “Ensuring Health Care as a Global Human Right,” and Darshak Sanghavi’s “Is it Cost Effective to Treat the World’s Poor.” Leach’s article is an interview with Benjamin Crème that illustrates why food, shelter, education, and healthcare are human rights that have to be available to everyone. He shares many of the same views on health care as Farmer, and the two also share similar solutions to this ongoing problem. Leach also talks about the rapidly growing aids epidemic, and how it must be stopped. Like farmer, he also argues that it is easier to prevent these diseases then to cure them. Furthermore, Sanghavi’s article represents many of the questions that people would ask about cost effectiveness. Yet similar to Farmer’s views, Sanghavi argues that letting the poor d...

    Read More

  • Andrew Carnegie And Peter Singer

    1346 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Reevaluating Charity: A Radical Approach

    870 Words  | 2 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Peter Singer's Essay 'Affluence, And Morality'

    1343 Words  | 3 Pages

    It is widely believed that charity is voluntary, a supererogatory action, while a duty is an obligatory action. Singer shares this view, but there are reason to think that he should not. Singer’s principle seems to imply that it should not be considered a voluntary action to create change and help those in need. And, not only does it only suggest that we should change the way we think, but it indicates that we should do everything that we can to minimize the suffering because it is our moral

    Read More

  • Peter Singer's Argument in Famine, Affluence and Morality

    1493 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...themselves. By adding further conditions or exceptions we could address specific objections and create more narrowly defined obligations. Further modifications of PP’ would not generally eliminate obligations, but it would allow choices to be made. In particular, for the affluent, doing nothing remains off limits so they would still be required to do what they can to alleviate suffering in places where they are in agreement that help is warranted. This derivation from the original argument plausibly supports the basic argument made by Singer that we ought to do everything in our power to help those in need so long as we need not sacrifice anything significant.

    Read More

  • Difference Between Jan Narveson Vs Peter Singer

    1135 Words  | 3 Pages

    In this piece he makes it clear that nearly everyone has the ability to make a difference is others lives. dings”. Narveson, unlike Singer, thinks that our voluntary choices about giving are morally permissible, whether we choose to give or not. If you choose to sacrifice your luxuries for charity, then that’s fine (morally speaking), as long as you haven’t neglected your obligations with your family. In “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, the author Peter Singer argues that there is no reason why Americans don’t donate money to the needy when they can afford countless of luxury that are not essential to the preservation of their lives and health. In the case that you choose not to sacrifice for charity, then that’s fine too. As per Narveson 's position it’s up to us to help or feeding the hungry and whatever we decide is correct too. What Narveson does argue is that it would be wrong for others to force us to give, say, by taxing us and giving our money to charity. This claim does not contradict anything that Singer says in “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”. Nowhere in that article does Singer say that people should be forced to give. But for a utilitarian, such as Singer, there is no reason in principle why it would be wrong to force people to give. If the policy of forcing people to give maximizes utility, then it is ipso facto the right policy. On the other hand Narveson makes a distinction between

    Read More

  • Singer Cullity

    1687 Words  | 4 Pages

    ... morally obligatory, the way in which Singer suggests people go about doing so is simply too demanding. People cannot realistically be expected to continue donating to charity up until the point where their lives would be put at risk significantly. Cullity instead concludes that we should donate to charity until either there are no longer any more lives to be saved or until “your overall sacrifice, in regards to those non-altruistically-focused goods that can be impartially defended as permissible, is significant enough to make it justifiable for you to refuse to save a life directly at that cost.” He says that it is true to say that this conclusion demands more from us than most people find acceptable, but that its demands are moderate, not severe. I believe Cullity’s version of Miller’s argument is successfully less demanding which can only stand in its favour.

    Read More

  • Peter Singer's Paper 'Famine, Affluence and Morality'

    1498 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Singers Solution to World Poverty

    1213 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Morality of Giving

    1069 Words  | 3 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • Famine Relief

    1822 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Utilitarianism In John Singer's Peter Singer Solution To World Poverty

    1828 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Moral obligation to help

    1924 Words  | 4 Pages

    ...ter place. It should be recognized that the progress of a society solely does not depend on the prosperity or fortunate chances of just one individual; it is based entirely on the whole population. By seeing that we have a moral obligation to help human beings wherever they are, we are improving the living conditions for all.

    Read More

More about Peter Singer's Argument Analysis

Open Document