Essay On Singer's Strong Principle Of Sacrifice

Money: the root of most social problems and one of the few matters that almost everyone has an opinion on. Peter Singer’s “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” a newspaper article, is no exception. Singer argues that one should donate all unnecessary money to the less fortunate because of the morality of the situation. However, though the goal is noble, his commentary is very ineffective due to its condescending tone, lack of hard facts, and overall extremism.

Singer says we have a duty to give to charity. Basically, by not giving to charity, we are all doing something morally wrong every day, and he is right but to a certain extent. Singer argues that the way people in relatively wealthy countries react to situations, such as the example he mentions of the crisis Bengal faces, is unjustifiable (230). He first says that for one, unnecessary death is bad, from either hunger or lack of shelter, and then two, if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, or anything morally significant, then we must do it. Basically, by not giving to charity, we are all doing something morally wrong every day, in which might trigger certain individuals since some cannot afford to do so.

In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer argues that some morally good actions, such as donating to relief funds and charitable organizations, should be duties.

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.

The Singer Solution to World Poverty Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics, wrote an article featured in The New York Times Magazine. “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” which explored Singer’s idea of taking all money which is not being used for necessities, from people across the world. This idea would, as Singer purpose, is supposedly supposed to solve the World’s poverty issue. However with an issue this complex, a solution is not always going to black and white, thus it is important to weigh the pros and cons before rejecting or endorsing this idea.

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 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. In his conclusion, he suggests that people should donate money to children if they want to live morally. As a human being, we should consider ourselves in the same situation with children.

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.

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

“Someday, the capitalist system will disappear in the United States, because no social class system has even eternal. One day, class societies will disappear” - Fidel Castro. Peter Singers’ “A Solution To World Poverty” is viewed as a drastic way to end world poverty. Barbara Lazear Aschers “On Compassion” makes the reader understand that it is okay to help the lower class. Singer and Ascher have contrasting viewpoints on social class, particularly on donating money and the willingness to save a lower class citizen.

Question 2 Peter Singer in his paper “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” described a principle I know as “Singers Cardinal Principle.” The principle reads “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable more importance, we ought, morally to do it.” Singer is saying that if one person has a opportunity to prevent something wrong form occurring without that persons action ending up causing the same or worst results to happen, then that person is morally obligated to do such action. In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” Singer argues that people who are from wealthy countries should change the way they live to living committed to helping those people in need.

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. This is, in a way, a decision people face every single day. As a society,

Charles decided to distinguish who to give alms to in order to save money, but still give to those “deserving”. Similarly, Juan Luis Vives a Spanish humanist wrote how poor people “are driven to robbery” and other fiendish acts, and “that [Europeans] have a duty to charity” to help these impoverished people out (Document 1). Vives continues by saying how people are uncertain if they should give “because their good intention is embarrassed by the great number” or “where first or most effectively” to give their money to.

In his article, The Singer Solution, Peter Singer argues that citizens of affluent nations are failing to do their moral duty, which is to donate far more to charity than they actually do. The article starts by referring to the Brazilian film Central Station where a miserable retired schoolteacher named Dora is faced with a choice. She could pocket an impressive $1000, but she must first convince a homeless 9 year old to follow her to a certain location where she is told he would be adopted. After spending the $1000 on a new TV, Dora learns that the boy would actually be killed and his organs sold. Dora decides to get the boy back, but what if Dora decided to look the other way after learning of the boy’s fate?

Lastly, Singer argues that we can actually make a difference without sacrificing a lot. By the end of “Rich and Poor” Singer concludes that we owe it to others to prevent absolute poverty. Throughout this paper there are many problems that I have found to be true. For Singers first argument he uses an