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. 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 …show more content…
While pointing out that it is much easier to ignore an appeal for money to help those you’ll never meet than to consign a child to death, Singer uses his utilitarian philosophy to deflect the argument, stating that “if the upshot of the American’s failure to donate the money is that one more kid dies… then it is, in some sense, just as bad as selling the kid to the organ peddlers.” This argument, however, can only be made while using false dilemmas. Singer also addresses a large criticism of his work, that one can’t decide moral issues by taking opinion polls. The argument to this reiterates how the audience would feel being in these situations. This argument is poor as it does not address how the entire article is based on how everyone feels about this particular subject. The point is never satisfactorily addressed elsewhere, making the counterargument
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
Mistaking Poverty Throughout the text, “Changing the Face of Poverty,” Diana George is certainly precise when claiming that the common representations of poverty limit our understanding of it. She expresses that most of our knowledge of poverty becomes misinterpreted due to advertisements, media, and images. Consequently, the way that we look at poverty focuses around that in which is in third-world countries, but poverty can be anywhere, even in your backyard. American citizens are the audience for the text, because Americans typically portray as being wealthy, happy people who are oblivious to the poverty-stricken areas surrounding them.
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).
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.
The issue surrounding the wealthy class and their abundance of money is one that has been prominent for a long time. For many, the seemingly endless fortune these elite class people sit on has been deemed to be unfair and unnecessary, especially when there are people around the world who are not making enough money to obtain basic necessities. Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics, believes that the solution to this monetary problem is for the wealthy to simply donate money they don’t use on basic necessities back to the people in need. Although giving back to the less fortunate could potentially help in fixing many problems, prosperous people should not be obligated to donate money they “don’t need” to various organizations because since
“The Singer Solution to World Poverty” by Peter Singer raises a thought provoking question to his audience—to give or not to give? Singer believes that acquiring luxuries is equivalent to letting poverty-stricken children starve to death. Extreme hypothetical scenarios of people who choose money and luxuries over a child’s life are prevalent throughout Singer’s argument and to further prove his point, he creates parallels between those people and people who don’t donate and claims that there is no moral distinction between the two. Singer’s straight-forward, but rather demanding proposition states that the money used to indulge in luxuries should go towards people in need instead. In an ideal world, Singer’s “solution” would be simple and noble.
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
According to the United Nations, a child dies of hunger every ten seconds. Likewise, millions of people live in poverty and do not know when they will eat again. While the typical American throws away leftover food, children are dying across the world from starvation. To put this into perspective: By the time you have started reading, a child has died of hunger. But who is to blame?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?