Peter Singer Rich And Poor Summary

744 Words3 Pages

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. 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 …show more content…

Everyone has a different amount of work they put into their jobs every day. If we are asked to give up all of our extras to the point of only necessities people are going to stop working as hard as they did when they were creating all of the extras they enjoyed before, and our society falls apart. No one is going to put in the extra effort and go to work every day to create money for people who are working much less than they are. It is unrealistic as a society for us to ask everyone to continue working as hard as they are, but give away everything they have made, and Singer is a perfect example of this. He believes all of these things to be true, but does not do it himself. Singer doesn’t want to be the one to start the movement, and doesn’t want to be the only one to do it, but expects his arguments for people to live on just necessities to be a valid one. If Singer cannot lead by example how can he expect anyone to? People work hard in there every day lives to create what they have, and we all have different amounts of money because of this. The people who work extremely hard for what they have may have an abundance of money, for

Show More
Open Document