Peter Singer Solution To World Poverty Analysis

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.

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.

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,

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.

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.

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

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?

In this paper, I argue that Singer’s strong principle of sacrifice is flawed due to its over -demandingness. Singer denotes that as affluent individuals, we have a moral obligation to sacrifice up to the point of comparable moral significance to help those in absolute poverty. This essay will argue against Singer’s strong principle as it is psychologically too strong of an argument to be morally obliging. Singer’s argument exhorts us to give based on the controversial principle of comparable moral significance, to donate any income beyond that which is marginally necessary. Singer justifies this based on the knowledge that the suffering of a poor person should be no less significant to that of an affluent one (Singer, 1972).

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.

All things considered I have chosen the essay written by Diana George tittled “changing the face of poverty.” First and foremost there is an restraint of the endless controversy of poverty. Sadly as Diana Geroge dispute in her essay, the organization with the primitive purpose of abolishing global poverty are possibly the ones endowing to the very problem they battle against (George 676) Her main example wa habitat for humanity, she disputes that the organization is not sending very affective message and that they often fail to which I agree with 100%. The world assumes that they are doing more than what is actually being practiced. Furthermore George disclosed her disagreement concerning these issues.

Around the world, there are thousands of starving children that seem to go unnoticed daily. Shoppers are constantly in the supermarket filling their carts with hundreds of dollars’ worth of groceries for their family’s without thinking of those in need. In 2008, a remarkable shopping cart ad was released which depicts a distraught young African American child reaching up to the shopper begging for help to save him from starvation. Feed SA, a charitable organization which helps the poverty-stricken across the county has designed a striking ad to bring attention to just how easy donating can be. The effectiveness of this ad is due to the powerful rhetorical appeals to pathos in which it implements.

The scenes of poverty were inescapable, evident on the faces of adults and children. It was extremely important to me to interact with the children as I would my sister or friend. To me they were not destitute kids; they were just kids, like

The article is thought provoking. It alerts the reader to new less commonly known facts on poverty such as the fact that it takes more money to only combat causes of poverty instead of actually strategically preventing it from happening in the first place. a. The author does not make any reference to prior research. b.

The philosophical issue that we have considered since the Mid-Term that has interested me the most was Global Poverty. Singer’s moral principle “If is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it. I agree with this fully because everybody should be willing to help others when they are suffering without having to thinking about it. I just really understood where Peter Singer was coming from. The example he made about the toddler flailing in the pond and if I would get out of my car to help the child I will be late for work. If I was in that situation I would help the child out because I could always get another job if I was late but child