“It makes no moral difference whether the person I can help is a neighbour’s child ten yards from me or a Bengali whose name I shall never know, ten thousand miles away” (Singer, Peter). This was the main thesis of Peter Singer’s renowned 1971 essay, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”. During that period, the world was becoming increasingly globalized and international. As a result, this essay sparked widespread debate, which subsequently led to a breakthrough in the study of ethics. However, 43 years after the inception of this essay, is this quote still applicable today? I believe that it is, and hence, I take the stand of Peter Singer’s - that richer countries should indeed help poorer countries in need, in terms of humanitarian and development …show more content…
For example, in the USA, the government provides federal aid through programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which provides food-purchasing assistance for low or no income people living in the USA ("Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)."). In addition, all these people living in such richer countries are provided with basic infrastructure, basic sanitation and basic healthcare, satisfying their fundamental needs to survive. In comparison, people in poorer countries are unable to even fulfill their most primitive necessities and have no other means to do so. This is particularly evident in Cambodia, where economic gains from rapid industrialization are so unevenly distributed that it left an extreme number of rural Cambodians living the poverty line ("Cambodia: Bearing Scars & Beauty."). However, unlike richer countries, the Cambodian government lacks financial resources to provide the people with aid and infrastructure as they continue to slowly recover from the crippling civil war in the 1970s. This almost total lack of resources also brings rise to extremely poor sanitation and healthcare conditions, resulting in 60,000 Cambodians dying each year due to waterborne illnesses, which could be avoided if they were provided with clean …show more content…
All of these richer countries are part of the United Nations (UN), an international community “committed to promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights”, as stated by Chapter 1 of the UN Charter ("Charter, United Nations, Chapter I”). Thus, richer countries are obligated to promote human rights and better living standards across the international community - to benefit not only themselves, but also people in LEDCs. In addition, it has been stated in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 28 that “Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized” (“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights”). As such, when their rights cannot be realized through national means, people in poorer countries are entitled to international help, where advanced technology and a surplus of resources is available to warrant substantial and significant aid to these poorer countries. As human beings are moral agents, they are “entitled to universal protection regardless of proximity, ethnicity, nationality, or citizenship” (Amstutz 211). When people suffer from hunger, disease, malnutrition, and other calamities that infringe their rights, their fundamental worth as moral agents is compromised (Amstutz 212). In Colombia, where poverty still plagues many of its people, street crime is
In The working poor by David K shipler writes about the real poverty in America that many forget about. In The working poor by David K Shipler, writes about the many factors that separate the working poor from well being. Shipler starts of by stating the traits that are needed to be successful in America. Some for example, a well paying job, high self esteem, good connections and many more.
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.
Singer is no stranger to writing moral arguments, having written many different books and articles in the past on a wide range of ethical debates. “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” originally printed in the New York Times in the fall of 1999 just before Singer began to work at Princeton University, is intended for the common man, a middle-class citizen who makes average wages and reads popular newspapers. As Singer is a professor of ethics, the article is structured around the
Class Stereotypes Stereotypes are seen as overgeneralized ideas, images, or beliefs of a person based on a group of people. Stereotypes can either be taken or said in a negative or positive way but mostly seen in a negative way. Stereotypes are formed on a life experience, idea or a belief a person may have towards one person based on the person’s gender, race, religion or social class. The most common stereotypes are of the social classes which are the: upper, middle and lower class.
Frederick Buechner once said, “Compassion is sometimes the fatal capacity for feeling what it is like to live inside somebody else's skin.” Similarly, an author by the name of Barbara Lazear Ascher wrote an essay called “On Compassion,” in which she states that people learn about compassion when they experience hardships and begin to put oneself in another’s place. Along with the idea of compassion being learned, Ascher also tries to make us wonder what our motive is that leads us to being compassionate. Ascher tries to make us question why we feel the need to be compassionate towards others throughout her essay.
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).
Most Colombians are being forced out of their homes and forced to live on the streets. Some are threatened and harmed and are pulled and have to live on the streets. Paramilitaries will enter a region and start to execute local community leaders. This right is being broken by small armies destroying the civilians and also harming them and sometimes killing them. Other problems currently in Colombia are deforestation and the environmental issues.
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.
This poverty seems to create a sort of lawlessness, as well as an inherent moral decay in many of its citizens.
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. To begin, we will look at Singers beliefs and arguments regarding poverty and the responsibility of people to help those in need. Singer’s first arguments revolves around a girl named Dora, who is a retired schoolteacher, who is barely making a living writing
Making the World a Better Place Poverty is the state of being extremely poor. Most people face poverty once they have children and start to live on their own. In “A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift he presents a solution to mothers who are poor and cannot consume enough for the children. However, Peter Singer's view in “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” is to create the best outcome for those who are poor. To solve the world's problems everyone needs to help each other, stop being selfish, children to not be disturb, and adults to have same job opportunities, however others oppose saying the best way to solve world poverty problems would be to feed the wealthy with the poor.
Injustices, tragedies, and unfortunate circumstances have plagued humankind for all of existence. Many of these problems have arisen from the society of man, and could not be found in nature. The hatred, selfishness, prejudice, and maliciousness seen in so many injustices man created unnecessarily, as well as all the suffering it causes does not need to exist. If an individual witnesses a crime or injustice occurring, it is their responsibility to defend the weak and fight for whatever is morally right, even at the cost of themselves.
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.
According to United Nation statistics, until this moment, there are 836 million people whom live in extreme poverty meaning they don’t have the rights they are entitled to in the first point of Article 25 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which clearly states that “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his
Crime offers a way in which poor people can obtain material goods they cannot attain through legal means. Often, threat or force helps them acquire even more goods, encouraging them to commit more violent acts such as robbery and rape. Thus, poverty increases crime