Singer believes that giving your fair share is never enough because you could always give more (650). Singer rationalizes this viewpoint using his already controversial idea of everyone being equal in worth (650). To do this he gives the audience a simple analogy. In his analogy he creates a scene where fifty children have fallen in a pond and are drowning (650). The audience is among forty nine adults that can “easily wade into the pond and rescue the children” (650).
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?
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.
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. The piece is written by Peter Singer, an Australian professor of bioethics at Princeton University.
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.
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 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).
Think again about Bob and his Bugatti. Unlike Dora, Bob did not have to look into the eyes of the child he was sacrificing for his own material comfort.” Both “Why Don’t We Complain” and “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” are similar because it explains how people would rather save their own possessions, causing them to live with guilt for the rest of their
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
Peter Singer himself writes, “We can give to organizations like Unicef or Oxfam America” (Singer, 737). If the wealthy people were to help the poor out, there is no reason to bother in using children of the poor to feed the wealthy. The money that will be provided can go into making shelters in which those children can live happily. There is no reason for those who do not trust organizations, to be selfish. They themselves can create their own organization, give children shelters and their parents a job as well.
Generally, Singer hopes that people should make a plausible budget to donate money to strangers (384). He starts criticizing Americans who waste their money in things that not necessary to them when he said, “The average family in United States spends almost one-third of its income on things that are no more necessary to them than Dora’s new TV was to her” (379). Here, Singer is trying to warn families not to spend money in not necessary things that this money could mean difference between life and death. At this point, the author is very serious about people’s spending, which could save children’s lives. He also gives his reader a story about Bob, who been in a difficult situation that he can save a child’s life, but he could lose his fancy
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.
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.
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.
Singer advises people to not follow Bob’s actions. Singer wants people to redeem themselves like Dora, and donate money as much as they could. Singer believes that if everyone would only spend on necessities then people would have money to save a child’s life. Therefore, Singer’s solution to world’s poverty would be successful by adding that people could donate to their own preference of charitable organization and donate as much as they
