In “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” by Peter Singer, he argues that if the money not spent on necessities of life were donated, “that money could be the difference between life and death for children in need.” He makes note of the fact that so much of our income is spent on things that are not essential to life, and that if we were to donate the money we did not have to spend, we would help many children in need. Singer gives many theoretical examples such as, a Brazilian woman giving away a child whom she knows is going to be killed, just to get $1,000 that she spent on a new TV. Another example would be, Bob having the choice between a train smashing his Bugatti or killing a kid who doesn’t hear the train, and Bob decides to save his car and not the kid. Singer states that although those actions may have seemed awful, we Americans do the same, just without having it directly in front of us like Bob and the Brazilian woman did. If we were to donate $200 we would be able to save one child’s life, and for the average American, $200 is still not a large donation compared to what they could afford. …show more content…
Singer used this great example, a household bringing in $50,000 a year, spends roughly around $30,000 on necessities alone, leaving $20,000 that could be donated; therefore stating, “Again, the formula is simple: Whatever money you’re spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given
I also agree with the fact that many people do step down from helping in any situation if they see someone give too much money, when they can only give a little embarrassing amount. Instead of that other person helping they are really damaging others from getting help. If everyone just gave or helped a little that would be enough for everyone else to see and to feel guilt for not stepping in and it would also cross out others stating that they do not have much to give; if in case everyone gave a reasonable amount that no one could not afford. For Singer it was about keeping your morals in place and that one ought to do what is known to be the right thing to do. To help in any way possible and in doing so the world would be very different and there would be less
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
By providing a specific number, $200, Singer demonstrates how simple and reasonable it is to save a child in poverty. Additionally, he repeats, “to save a child’s life,” which demonstrates exactly what a $200 donation could do for a child in poverty. As an example, Singer references a credible philosopher, Peter Unger, and acknowledges that “by his calculation, $200 in donations would help a sickly 2-year-old transform into a healthy 6-year-old.” Next, he establishes, “if you were to give up dining out just for one month, you would easily save that amount.” Singer emphasizes this to show the reader how simple it is to save $200, and, more importantly, save the life of a helpless child.
As he included, “if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally to do it”(Singer 332). As you said, yes people should help others, but they shouldn’t put themselves in tough situation or “break the bank” trying to help someone else. Also, Singer stated, “The charitable man may be praised, but the man who is not charitable is not condemned” (Singer 334). I think he meant that, it can be the right thing to do to help someone in poverty, but it is not always wrong if you cannot help them. I agree with your opinion that people want to spend money on things that make them happy.
In one circumstance, we may feel the need to give to those who are poor to keep them from getting in our personal space; and in other circumstances we feel that we give to others out of the kindness of our heart. I completely agree with Ascher and her views on compassion, because I have been in similar situation where I have questioned why people give money, and whether they give with a whole heart or out of necessity. Furthermore, this essay can teach us plenty of lessons that can be utilized throughout our lives so we can teach others and make them aware of the need to be more
However, there are certain problems with his argument. Many Americans may not be able to afford to give all of their extra money towards charity. What if an emergency happened and they had no extra money to deal with the problem? What if the $30,000 quite a bit lower than the cost of surviving in the area that you live?
I do like his main analogy because it made me look at the situation in a different light. If I saw a child drowning in a pond, I wouldn 't think twice about jumping in to help him/her. So why is it I don 't feel the same way about "jumping in" to help children from poverty? In the analogy of the drowning child, Singer questions whether he should jump in and ruin his new shoes, dirty his suit, and be late for work, all to save a child 's life. I surmise part of the reason he adds this to his analogy is to make us question ourselves.
The Truth About Poverty “Poverty is like punishment for a crime you didn't commit” this quote was said by Mahatma Gandhi and it relates so well with this article “It is Expensive To Be Poor”, answer the question yourself, Is it expensive to be poor? This article is titled like that to get the audience's attention early and have them thinking ahead of reading. The author Barbara Ehrenreich is building a pre thought when she does this which helps support her claim. “It is Expensive To Be Poor” by Barbara Ehrenreich is an article posted on “The atlantic” “which is where you can find your current news and analysis on politics, business, culture, and technology”. Knowing what “The Atlantic” offers for readers this gives Ehrenreich a detailed look at who she is writing to.
Due to this reason, Singer states that the fair donation argument fails and would not be enough to fix the problem. Now that we have an understanding of Singer’s beliefs, I can show how Singer would respond to the question given in the prompt. Peter would say that yes he should donate, but the small amounts he would be choosing to donate would be nowhere near the amount that he should be choosing to give. Singer would say that any money that he isn’t spending on necessities should be donated to help those in dire situations, and that not doing so is
In Singer’s “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” he argues the importance of donation to poor people, which could mean the difference between life and death for children in need. He gives an example for Bob, who has an opportunity to save a child’s life, but he could lose his worthy car. He makes a comparison between people who are capable to donate money to save children lives and people who have no chance to help or donate under certain situation such as Bob. He also encourages people who are in the middle class to donate at a minimum of 200$; furthermore, he thinks that people should donate more like 200.000$ when they consider the level of sacrifice that they would demand of Bob’s situation. He gives some estimates for the amount of donations that people should give to overseas.
“Why can't peop;le who have money more than enough for their own needs give the rest to their fellow human beings? Why should anyone have to have such a hard life for those few short years on earth?” (Frank paragraph 6) and “But above all, a gift should never be flung in anyone's face - every person has a right to kindness.” (Frank paragraph 7) These two pieces of evidence from Anne Frank exemplify that wealthier people should try and put themselves in the street beggars shoes and see how much they need help from others who have everything and
As we are constantly increasing the difficulty for them to make a sustainable life it is necessary for us to help them overcome these problems. Furthermore, Singer goes on to question whether we really are entitled to all that we have. Many people object to giving on the grounds that they have worked hard for what they have earned and thus should be entitled to enjoy it for themselves. However, Singer states that 90% of wealth is determined by our capital, and so, as much as we may work hard, our wealth is ultimately determined by
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.
Singer attempts to close this gap with the age old question of ‘why don’t we give the riches’ money to the poor’. The essence of Singer’s argument is obviously end world poverty. Probably the strongest point made in Singer’s argument is the involvement of the whole world. By taking this money from those across the world eliminates the opportunity for indifference. To stand with indifference is to stand with the oppressor.