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 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 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.
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. Therefore, Section I of this essay shall outline and describe Singer’s arguments and conclusion, while Section II shall examine the objections and counter-claims to Singer’s
In A Framework for Understanding Poverty, Ruby Payne try’s to explain the behaviors and barriers of three social classes: poverty, middle class, and wealth. Beyond the social class of poverty, it’s a breakdown of the elements of the classes and the ‘hidden rules’ each one has. She stresses that these hidden rules aren’t taught in businesses or schools, these of which function as the hidden rules of middle class. Payne states these hidden rules aren’t exactly natural, they’re learned, and as one grows up in a particular class those rules are set in place. She lists all the rules in each class, and the differences are striking. Neither group understands the other, but A Framework for Understanding Poverty does it’s best to put someone in the
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
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. Singer argues that most wealthy people have the solution to end poverty in their hands to end poverty, but most of them don’t do it. Peter’s solution works for people who have enough money to spend on luxuries, but it fails for people who live based on their weekly income. Therefore, Singer’s successful essay gives ideas on how to save money monthly to donate, but it fails when the author urges people where and how much to donate instead of giving them the freedom to choose.
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). Thus,
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.
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.
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
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.
If someone goes shopping and spends hundreds of dollars on items and don’t donate, that says something about who they are as a person. While shopping a constant reminder is right there. A sad, innocent, starving, child stares up begging for someone to help. While the shopper may be well-off or struggling to put groceries on the table for their family, they then realize that there is someone out there who has it much worse. Shoppers who may not be very eager to donate begin to see how ignoring this world problem makes reflects on them as a person.
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? Singer believes that people of