Not In Our World People are starving all over the world. They lack food, water, and basic medication. Some suggest that the wealthy should donate and do their part to help. Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics, wrote an article called “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” in The New York Times Magazine, in which he suggests that the prosperous people should donate all money not needed for the basic requirements of life. First, a pro to having prosperous people donate all money not needed for the basic requirements of life is that it could possibly end world hunger. Ending world hunger is a huge problem that many have tried to find a solution for. Another pro could be the advancement in oversea economies. With money, people that were once struggling could begin to start businesses and create innovation. A third pro could be creating a better environment for the world. If others begin to help overseas then we could create a world that can all rely on eachother. Hopefully, a world without hate. …show more content…
People would argue that they worked for that money so they deserve to keep it. Others would say that it’s an “every man for himself” world. Another con is that is may help oversea economies, but it would destroy ours. We use money to buy luxuries and use money to innovate. It wouldn’t make sense to destroy our economy to help aid theirs. Finally the third con is that the idea is just too good to be true. It would work like communism. Everyone would be equal. Everyone would get to eat. It’s a nice idea, but it would never work. Not everyone can get along and play nicely. People are selfish and greedy. It’s the same reason communism would never work. It may be ideal; however, the rich would never willingly give their money to people that they don’t know or care
In this paper I will examine both Peter Singer’s and Onora O 'Neill 's positions on famine relief. I will argue that O’Neill’s position is more suitable than Singer’s extreme standpoint. First I will, present O’Neill’s argument. I will then present a possible counter-argument to one of my premises. Finally I will show how this counter-argument is fallacious and how O’Neill’s argument in fact goes through.
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.
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 in 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 more.
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.
One could argue that it is okay to keep one’s earnings for themselves, and that a more meaningful and realistic way of giving to the poor is through your time. When a person donates money to a large charity, often times, only a minimum of that money actually makes it to those in need. Therefore, it probably is more of a use to those in poverty that one is of physical helps. If one was unable to physically donate time, due to distance, there are organizations where they can donate gently used clothing. This is also another more realistic way of helping to end poverty. This theory would leave society to be able to choose how much they donate, buy the expenses they wish with their own income, and donate anything they no longer
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.
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.
How much money is one morally obligated to give to relief overseas? Many In people would say that although it is a good thing to do, one is not obligated to give anything. Other people would say that if a person has more than he needs, then he should donate a portion of what he has. Peter Singer, however, proposes a radically different view. His essay, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” focuses on the Bengal crisis in 1971 and claims that one is morally obligated to give as much as possible. His thesis supports the idea that “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” (399). He says that one's obligation to give to people in need half-way around the world is just as strong as the obligation to give to one's neighbor in need. Even more than that, he says that one should keep giving until, by giving more, you would be in a worse position than the people one means to help. Singer's claim is so different than people's typical idea of morality that is it is easy to quickly dismiss it as being absurd. Saying that one should provide monetary relief to the point that you are in as bad a position as those receiving your aid seems to go against common sense. However, when the evidence he presents is considered, it is impossible not to wonder if he might be right.
Singer begins his argument by acknowledging that suffering from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad. He argues that if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing something of comparable moral importance, then we are obliged to do so. For example, we can donate to aid agencies
Imagine living in a community where every minute of everyday you are hungry, under clothed, and at risk at death because you are poor. Now imagine waking up and your biggest problem was which sweater to wear with which jeans. Both are scenarios that occur on a daily basis in our countries, some more extreme than others. With that in mind, this raises the question of whether rich nations have an obligation to help those nations in need. People who earn above a certain income should be forced to donate 10% of their money to the poor because, it will help break the vicious circle of poverty, help the society at large to move forward, and lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth. The poor do not have the money to save; all of the income goes to food, lodging, and heating bills, which are essential for survival. There is little left over to enjoy the luxuries of life, such as a home with heating, education, medical care, or even three proper meals a day. Because of their lack of education, they cannot get a well paying job, and thus are stuck in the lower classes of society. To he...
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.
Introduction “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” is a piece written by moral philosopher, Peter Singer, who places a challenge on our traditional notions of charitable giving. The essay argues in favour of donating, and of the moral obligation imposed upon us to contribute and help the global poor with humanitarian purposes. By critically assessing Singer’s writing, this reflection paper will study the main arguments advocated for in his work, as well as possible objections. Main arguments of the article 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.
When someone works hard to earn their money I believe it is up to that person how they want to spend it. According to Peter Singer (“The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” in G. Muller’s The New World Reader, pp. 361-368), it is immoral to spend money unnecessarily when that money can be used to help a starving child. I disagree with this statement. I am going to discuss my opinion on poverty and how I believe that spending money unnecessarily is not immoral.
Very tough conditions." Also the belief that “money can buy anything” is absurd and disgusting. Money cannot buy or return dignity and self-respect”.working-age people without jobs, and all kinds of problems that come along with that. Very tough conditions." Also the belief that “money can buy anything” is absurd and disgusting. Money cannot buy or return dignity and self-respect”.and plus and they wouldn't use it all for schools .and probably wouldn't use it for useful