Peter Singer: Famine, Affluence, and Morality
1. Singer’s main argument is that, “suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad…” (866). He jumps to his general principle (the strong version) to say that, “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought to morally, to do it” (866). If nothing bad is coming out of the moral good we wish to promote, we ought to morally do it. If we have the power to prevent something bad from happening, Singer says we ought to morally do it. This in other words only allows us to prevent the bad and not promote what is good. His second principle (the moderate version) is that, “if it is in our
…show more content…
Singer’s moderate principle is, “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it” (866). I think by taking this principle into consideration every day, we will have a way stronger bond with our family and friends and other connections we have with other people. I do think that a lot of bias occurs in a household. For example, if someone in our family needs help with something, many of the other family members may not help because they think someone else in the family will assist them. This principle says you should not let this dictate your choices to help or not. By choosing to help to prevent something bad from happening, we will have a flourishing society with people who strive to help because they morally know it is the right thing to do. I think it is a challenge to reconceive a society in which everyone believes in this principle. Many people can be bias without even realizing. We can definitely educate children in school and stress that this principle can help impact people tremendously. I do think the implication of following his moderate principle is consistent with living a meaningful and fulfilling life. This principle not only impacts others in a positive way, but changes our perspective on things. It can make us more open minded and understanding of the world. People even see the act of giving to others is bettering their own lives. By following this …show more content…
I think it is very important to understand what difference you can make by giving to others in any way. I personally was raised that any donation is a good deed. In my religion, we are taught to give about 10% of our earnings to any charity. I was raised that any change you receive back from stores at cashiers should be put in a tip jar in return. My mother also has stressed to help anyone who may need assistance with their groceries to be placed in their car for example. There are many different ways to give if you cannot give financially. In my opinion, everyone should make time to volunteer for something at least once a year. Volunteering teaches you that you can achieve something with teamwork whether it is to build a house for a family in need, help children, or to set up an event in your city. As a morally conscientious person, I would want to help people daily when I get older. With this being said, my goal is to open up my own clinic. When I am financially stable on my own, I would for sure give back at least once a week. A morally conscientious person would want to reach out and help anyone simply because they have the desire to and not because they feel obligated or want something in return. Impartiality is a principle of justice that focuses on the main criteria or overall goal of what one is trying to accomplish without being bias or prejudice against someone. Universality simply says that I should only act in ways that I believe others should act as well.
In Singer’s essay, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” the author begins by presenting the reader with the heartfelt scenario of the cost of a child vs. the cost of a new TV. Singer discusses how child trafficking with the intent of organ harvesting is the equivalent of purchasing a brand-new TV because in both cases one can improve conditions for children around the world, either by saving their life or by donating money to help them. Next, Singer goes into the narrative of a man named Bob. Bob has his entire life savings put into a precious Bugatti. However, Bob must make the choice to save his car or to flip the lever and save a child stuck on the railroad tracks.
The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast the economic and voluntary spirit models discussed in the article titled, Toward Nonprofit Organization Reform in the Voluntary Spirit: Lessons From the Internet (Brainard & Siplon, 2004). Additionally, analysis will be presented with regard to acquiring and expending resources according to each model, specifically volunteers and charitable donations. Finally, this paper will discuss the correlation between charitable donations and giving within nonprofit organizations and biblical principles. Similarities Between the Economic and Voluntary Spirit Models Several similarities exist between each of the models presented in the article for nonprofit, or income tax exempt, organizations (Worth,
“If civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that people must learn to reject.” -Ayn Rand. To be compassionate and unselfish seems to be a noble and magnanimous pursuit. Altruism is admired, it is beautiful, and it is praised.
Philip Manning 12504697 Q) Evaluate Peter Singer’s argument in ‘Famine, Affluence and Morality’. There can be no doubt that Peter Singer’s argument in ‘Famine, Affluence and Morality’ is unrealistic, unfair and not sustainable. Singer’s arguments are valid arguments but not sound. In order to get a clear and balanced view of my arguments which disprove the Singer article, it is first necessary to examine and lay out the main aspects of Singer’s argument in ‘Famine, Affluence and Morality’. My arguments against Singer’s claims shall then be detailed and examined in depth.
Singer is no stranger to writing moral arguments, having written many different books and articles in the past on a wide range of ethical debates. “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” originally printed in the New York Times in the fall of 1999 just before Singer began to work at Princeton University, is intended for the common man, a middle-class citizen who makes average wages and reads popular newspapers. As Singer is a professor of ethics, the article is structured around the
According to the United Nations, a child dies of hunger every ten seconds. Likewise, millions of people live in poverty and do not know when they will eat again. While the typical American throws away leftover food, children are dying across the world from starvation. To put this into perspective: By the time you have started reading, a child has died of hunger. But who is to blame?
Frederick Buechner once said, “Compassion is sometimes the fatal capacity for feeling what it is like to live inside somebody else's skin.” Similarly, an author by the name of Barbara Lazear Ascher wrote an essay called “On Compassion,” in which she states that people learn about compassion when they experience hardships and begin to put oneself in another’s place. Along with the idea of compassion being learned, Ascher also tries to make us wonder what our motive is that leads us to being compassionate. Ascher tries to make us question why we feel the need to be compassionate towards others throughout her essay.
In this paper I will be arguing against Peter Singer’s views on poverty, which he expresses in his paper “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”. Singer argues that all people with wealth surplus to their essential needs are morally obligated to prevent the suffering of those in dire situations. I will argue that you can not hold people morally obligated to prevent the suffering of others, and that people can only be held morally obligated to prevent suffering that they themselves caused. To begin, we will look at Singers beliefs and arguments regarding poverty and the responsibility of people to help those in need. Singer’s first arguments revolves around a girl named Dora, who is a retired schoolteacher, who is barely making a living writing
Caleb Stephens April 15, 2017 Introduction to Philosophy The goal of this paper is to demonstrate that Philippa Foot’s objection, raised to her own argument against utilitarianism, is correct. Her initial thesis is that benevolence, while the foundation of utilitarianism, is an internal end of morality, rather than the ultimate end of morality. The possible objection to this that there must be some overarching reason behind morality, which must imply a form of consequentialism. The response she offers is that there should be some other form of morality, which is a weak argument, as it does not provide an alternate conception of morality itself.
People have their own problems and struggles to deal with. People could be a dollar richer if they didn’t donate. Also, why do charities exist?
Peter Singer argues that prosperous people should donate their excess money to the overseas aid groups. When saying this, he believes Americans should stop spending their money on luxuries such as a TV, a computer, a car, and videogames. Instead of spending money on items such as that, he thought we should start sending money to those who are starving in other countries and need our help. There are pros and cons to Singer’s argument and both can be greatly supported.
Peter Singer argues, in “Rich and Poor” that it is out obligation morally to help people that are in extreme poverty. This is what I believe the three main topics to be. The first is that we owe it to the people in need to prevent something bad if we do not have to sacrifice anything of significance. The second thing he really talks about is absolute poverty, and absolute effluence. The second topic is very simply put, absolute poverty is bad.
Singer’s Solution Good or Not? Who wouldn’t want to find a solution to end or reduce poverty in the world? A utilitarian philosopher, Peter Singer stated his own solution in his essay called “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”. Singer’s solution is simple: people shouldn’t be spend their money on luxuries, instead they should donate their money to overseas aid organizations. Peter uses two characters in his essay in hope to get to the hearts and minds of the people, and encourage them to donate.
In addition, he explains that these fatal instances are not inevitable, and they can be stopped. Therefore, he believes we all must do everything in our power to prevent starvation and famine from occurring. Singer’s only condition is to help others without sacrificing anything of comparable value. For instance, do not give money to the needy if by doing that you will become poor yourself. In his explanation he uses a drowning baby as an example.
The word altruism may come to mind for some. When performing acts of kindness we