Imagine you just bought and drank a can of soda. What do you feel? Refreshment? Quashed thirst. How about this? You just killed someone who could have been saved if you hadn’t bought that can of soda. Peter Singer introduces this situation in the first page of his book, The Life You Can Save. He argues something brand new, “you have money to spend things you don’t really need”(xi). He’s not solely referring to massive yachts and multi-million dollar houses. He contends that by spending money on small unnecessary things you are allowing people to die. Essentially, killing them.
According to the Beverage Marketing Corporation, the average American in 2005 drank 44.7 gallons of soda. Approximately, 487 cans. That means that the average American spent around $730.50 on soda, and there is a big margin of error here because of varying prices. That mean,amongst the 295.5 million people in the U.S in 2005,
…show more content…
$215,862,750,000 was spent on soda. I doubted this result when I first got it, for it is outrageous! But do the math yourself, and you shall see that this is completely true. Enough with the numbers, let’s be logical. Let’s say that America alone gave up soda for one year. The people would have $215 billion to spend on other things. What other things? Well Peter Singer explains. Peter Singer, a bioethics professor at Princeton University, lays out his basic premises for his argument.
Essentially, he says that if it is in your ability to stop something bad from happening without giving up anything nearly as important, then you are wrong not to do so. He also says that suffering and death from lack of humanitarian needs is bad. Let’s look at the soda example. The point of drinking a soda is to quench your thirst. Some people could also really enjoy the taste of their favorite soda. Why buy something that will quench your thirst when you have access to something that is healthier and readily available at your will, water from your tap of a fountain? Consider the opposing side of this situation. Someone may say that they enjoy the taste of soda and question why they have to give up something they enjoy in order to benefit other people whom they have absolutely no connection to or responsibility for. Peter Singer responds with his overall ideal. Human lives are priceless. A human life is more important than the enjoyable taste of
soda. I don’t mean to isolate the soda example, but it is useable in most of the topics Singer addresses. Take for example the Diffusion of Responsibility. This is where no one helps because that person just expects others to help. If everyone thinks this way, no one ends up helping. If I myself do not give up soda for a year or so, and think others will give it up; The others will have the same thought. This is why, Singer contends, we must overcome our human nature of reliance on others and take action. Give your fair share before worrying about and criticizing others who don’t. Singer readily takes on objections and does not give a second thought when attacking the actions of affluent people. He calls out Larry Ellison and Bill Gates for not doing enough. Although Bill Gates has given over $3 billion to aid agencies, Singer says he should do more. I would readily suggest this book to someone who is looking for a thorough and convincing argument on why they should give to aid agencies. I will warn you though, if you are not very numbers oriented this book can be especially bland at some times especially towards the end, but it is worth reading.
The All Lives Matter supporters believe that black people who were killed recently showed violence against the policemen and they were not innocents. The president of Amherst College Republicans Robert Lucido responses, “First, the Black Lives Matter group was originally titled ‘F--- the Police.’ The organizers of the Awareness week claimed that every 28 hours a black man is killed by a law enforcement officer, but they never mentioned that a law enforcement officer is killed every 48 hours in the line of duty. The organizers may have thought it clever, but such a title is utterly shameful” (Lucido). The author uses ethos by showing facts in his response that illustrates the opposite of what Black Lives Matter group claimed; however, these
In 102 Minutes, Chapter 7, authors Dwyer and Flynn use ethos, logos, and pathos to appeal to the readers’ consciences, minds and hearts regarding what happened to the people inside the Twin Towers on 9/11. Of particular interest are the following uses of the three appeals.
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
In the book Into the Wild, Jon Krakauer wrote about Christopher McCandless, a nature lover in search for independence, in a mysterious and hopeful experience. Even though Krakauer tells us McCandless was going to die from the beginning, he still gave him a chance for survival. As a reader I wanted McCandless to survive. In Into the Wild, Krakauer gave McCandless a unique perspective. He was a smart and unique person that wanted to be completely free from society. Krakauer included comments from people that said McCandless was crazy, and his death was his own mistake. However, Krakauer is able to make him seem like a brave person. The connections between other hikers and himself helped in the explanation of McCandless’s rational actions. Krakauer is able to make McCandless look like a normal person, but unique from this generation. In order for Krakauer to make Christopher McCandless not look like a crazy person, but a special person, I will analyze the persuading style that Krakauer used in Into the Wild that made us believe McCandless was a regular young adult.
The Letter from Birmingham Jail was written by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in April of 1963. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was one of several civil rights activists who were arrested in Birmingham Alabama, after protesting against racial injustices in Alabama. Dr. King wrote this letter in response to a statement titled A Call for Unity, which was published on Good Friday by eight of his fellow clergymen from Alabama. Dr. King uses his letter to eloquently refute the article. In the letter dr. king uses many vivid logos, ethos, and pathos to get his point across. Dr. King writes things in his letter that if any other person even dared to write the people would consider them crazy.
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.
In the article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer argues that our conceptions on moral belief need to change. Specifically, He argues that giving to 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). 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.
Pollan’s article provides a solid base to the conversation, defining what to do in order to eat healthy. Holding this concept of eating healthy, Joe Pinsker in “Why So Many Rich Kids Come to Enjoy the Taste of Healthier Foods” enters into the conversation and questions the connection of difference in families’ income and how healthy children eat (129-132). He argues that how much families earn largely affect how healthy children eat — income is one of the most important factors preventing people from eating healthy (129-132). In his article, Pinsker utilizes a study done by Caitlin Daniel to illustrate that level of income does affect children’s diet (130). In Daniel’s research, among 75 Boston-area parents, those rich families value children’s healthy diet more than food wasted when children refused to accept those healthier but
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...
Peter Singer is an Australian ethical and political philosopher, best known for his work in bioethics. He argues that our ordinary patterns of spending money on ourselves are immortal. He thinks that spending money on things that benefit us rather than others, are not essential to preserving our lives or health. He believes that we should give most of our hard earned money to the poor or homeless. Singer states, “The money we spend on fancy dinners, new clothes, or vacations could instead be sent to relief agencies that save people’s lives.” Singer offers three cases where people have the opportunity to prevent an innocent person’s death, but fail to do so. The person in each of these examples has done something extremely immoral or wrong.
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.
Landau, Russ. "The Singer Solution to World Poverty By: Peter Singer." The ethical life: fundamental readings in ethics and moral problems. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. 229-236. Print.
Jonathan Kozol revealed the early period’s situation of education in American schools in his article Savage Inequalities. It seems like during that period, the inequality existed everywhere and no one had the ability to change it; however, Kozol tried his best to turn around this situation and keep track of all he saw. In the article, he used rhetorical strategies effectively to describe what he saw in that situation, such as pathos, logos and ethos.
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.