Everyday wealthy American’s splurge on what some would consider unnecessary items such as electronics, foreign cars, gaming systems and other luxury items to go into their grand homes. In Peter Singer’s, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” he states that Americans that can afford excessive amounts of high-priced items should be able to donate to the less fortunate. Though Singer cannot force anyone to donate he creates two theoretical situations to support his argument and leaves the reader wondering if they should donate or not. The theoretical situation persuades the reader into donating but slowly loses their persuasion as the article goes on when Singer demands not only a certain amount but all of their extra money but all. In the first theoretical situation Singer introduces a …show more content…
retired schoolteacher, Dora, was informed of an opportunity to make some quick cash by persuading a young homeless boy to go to the address given. The young boy was under the impressions that he was going to be adopted by foreigners.
After receiving the money Dora and splurging on a TV, she soon is informed that the child’s body will be disposed as well as selling his organs. Despite having her new TV, she decides to take the boy. Singer uses, Peter Unger's book, Living High and Letting Die in this example, he presents to us the character Bob, who has just spent his life saving on an old classic Bugatti. Bob is pleased with his investment and is proud that he was finally able to purchase his dream car. Not only does the car ride smooth and maintains much care the car maker values will increase as the car gets older ensuring Bob that he can sell it after retirement and still be financially stable. After parking his car by a railroad track and taking a walk, he notices a speeding train coming towards him, a child and also his car. Having the option to throw the track off and save the child or risking his investment on the car, unfortunately, the result of a speeding train leaves the child dead and his Bugatti unharmed. Singer directs his audience toward wealthy American’s with extra money that tend to splurge on unnecessary items. Nevertheless
he could direct this same theory to the middle and lower class who are already struggling trying to incorporate the luxury or nice things into their homes on a budget; while it sounds great on paper, people tend to change their behavior based on what is placed in front of them. Within these two situations, they invoke the reader showing two different situations that are similar to one other in many ways. In regards to Dora who chooses to save the child’s life, Singer states, That Dora could have showed no sympathy and chose to keep her new TV, if selling the kid was the only way she could afford one then so be it he was only a street kid she then would then have become a monster, putting materialistic things in front of a valuable life. However on the other side with Bob situation most readers immediately think Bob is wrong for risking the life of a child for what some would call a materialistic item. This persuades the reader to praise the actions of Dora but demote the decision Bob made. Singer makes a very important distinction between both situations where Dora had face to face interaction with the child whereas Bob had only seen the child from a distance and had no knowledge of why the child was playing along a train track anyways. Although the nature and relationship between Bob and Dora’s involvement with the children were different, they both had the opportunity to save a child’s life. Singer uses a persuasive style argument to get readers to agree with his opinion stating that he is a “utilitarian philosopher”, in such degrees that he can see the right or wrong in all situations. Dora’s consequences and decisions lead her to believe she was right in the eyes of the reader and Bob’s actions showed a lack of more humanity made readers view him as morally wrong, however Singer believes that Bob's lack of action should not be frowned upon. By relating the stories of Dora and Bob to Americans not donating to the poor shows similarities. Bob was unaware that a child was on the track just as we are unaware what child receives our donations. Secondly, just as the result of the child dying because of Bob not flipping the switch can be compared to the low donation rates that result in poor children dying. It is contrary to belief that the consequences of action determines whether a person is right or wrong and if any action results in the death of a child the action is wrong not matter the situation. If we find Bob morally wrong for not saving the child do we apply the same wrong doing to those who do not surplus their wealth to donate to a child in need. Singer used Peter Unger’s hypothesis that it would only take $200 to help an unhealthy child into a healthy one. Though $200 isn’t a lot Singer should not demand for people to donate all extra money they have, his argument was strong until his high demand which cancelled all the positive points him made earlier. Singer's demand for donating such a large amount without detailed explanation other than children dying would make most not want to donate at all if there was no suggested price demand readers would leave considering donating money.
“A Modest Proposal” was written in 1729 by a satirical author by the name of Jonathan Swift. Swift studied at the University of Oxford and was also know for his popular writing in Gulliver’s Travel. The purpose for his satire “A Modest Proposal” was to enlighten the citizens of Ireland about their hardship and suffering. He informed them about their scares of food, money, and property, but provided a possible solution to their problem. To persuade the people Swift adopts a comforting and friendly tone to his audience for the people to react to his solution.
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
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
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 Peter Singer’s “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” an article in The Allyn & Bacon Guide to Writing. Peter Singer debates the only method to solving world poverty is simply the money that is being spent on necessities, such as luxuries, should be donated to charity.If this is not done, the question of morality and virtue is put in place. Singer’s article begins by referring to a Brazilian movie Central Stadium, the film is centered on Dora, a retired schoolteacher, who delivers a homeless nine-year-old-boy to an address where he would supposedly be adopted. In return she would be given thousands of dollars, thus spending some of it on a television set. Singer then poses an ethical question, asking what the distinction is “between a Brazilian who sells a homeless child to organ peddlers and an American who already has a TV and upgrades to a better one, knowing that the money could be donated to an organization that would use it to save the lives of kids in need?”(545). Singer mentions the book Living High and Letting Die, by the New York University philosopher Peter Unger, discussing a peculiar scenario. Bob, the focus of the story is close to retirement and he has used the majority of his savings to invest on a Bugatti. The point of this story is to demonstrate how Bob chose to retrieve his car rather than save ...
Often times, the middle and upper classes underestimate the amount of poverty left in our society. In “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Peter Singer reaches out to the lucrative to help the misfortune. Although Singer believes that, the wealthy has a responsibility in providing help to the less fortunate, Singer conducts theories in which he explains how we as Americans spend more on luxuries rather than necessities. If the wealthy are fortunate enough to go out to fancy meals, they should be able to provide food for a poor family or medicine for the children. The negative attributes outweigh the positive due to the lack of supporting detail from the positive in which helps us better understand that helping people is the right thing to do rather than sitting back and doing nothing but demands that Americans donate every cent of their extra money to help the poor. According to Singer, if we provide a foundation for the misfortune we will not only make the world a better place but we will feel a relief inside that world poverty will soon end. The argument singer gives has no supporting details in which he tries and persuade the wealthy to donate money to the poor without clear thoughts.
In 1729, Jonathan Swift published a pamphlet called “A Modest Proposal”. It is a satirical piece that described a radical and humorous proposal to a very serious problem. The problem Swift was attacking was the poverty and state of destitution that Ireland was in at the time. Swift wanted to bring attention to the seriousness of the problem and does so by satirically proposing to eat the babies of poor families in order to rid Ireland of poverty. Clearly, this proposal is not to be taken seriously, but merely to prompt others to work to better the state of the nation. Swift hoped to reach not only the people of Ireland who he was calling to action, but the British, who were oppressing the poor. He writes with contempt for those who are oppressing the Irish and also dissatisfaction with the people in Ireland themselves to be oppressed.
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
response to the Singer. Cullity argues that Singer’s conclusion, that we ought to help others in need so long as this does not cause any significant damage to ourselves, is severely demanding, as it is essentially arguing that we are morally obligated to help everybody in the world. The only way in which we would be able to justify not helping somebody who needed our help would be if doing so would put the person helping at significant risk. Cullity argues in his paper that Singer’s argument is asking too much of people when it claims that donating to aid agencies is a moral obligation and that not doing so would be immoral. His main way of doing so is by rejecting the Severe Demand.
Singer’s argument may have swayed many people to donate their dispensable income to children in need despite the fact that it has many fundamental flaws. He argues that we should give away the majority of our earnings to charity. Since Singer wants the reader to donate such a large amount of money, the readers are given no choice but to contribute nothing whatsoever. His solution is not realistic and does not take into account the long-term financial impact this type of donation contribution system would have on a country’s economy.
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.
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.
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.