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 …show more content…
Singer is a utilitarian philosopher, along with the likes of other famous philosophers such as David Hume and Henry Sidgwick. Utilitarianism is a type of consequentialism in which it is believed that the right act to perform is the one that produces the most utility, or good. When you view the previous example with this mind set, you can see how the varying situations and choices wouldn’t matter, all that would matter is the fact that both decisions would lead to the same consequence. Yet, Singer doesn’t believe that you have to adapt to his ethics in order to agree that there is something wrong with the fact that people are quick to find fault with Dora, yet have no issue with the choice of the American consumer. Another example from Singer was inspired by another philosopher, Peter Unger, who in his work Living High and Letting Die created several imaginary examples about whether it is wrong to live well without giving money to help people in need. This example is about a man named Bob who invested most of his life savings in a very rare and expensive car, a Bugatti. Bob gets vast amounts of pleasure from driving the car, and with the car’s rising market value, it provides a profitable investment which can allow him to retire comfortably. One-day Bob is …show more content…
The objection is that all that is needed to prevent any future ailments is for citizens living in high wealth nations to donate their fair share. Through this method, the level of donations needed to prevent any future ailments would be met before anyone had to donate the percentage of income that Singer suggests. Singer agrees that the idea of everyone doing their fair share is noble, and would fix the problem. But, Singer believes that since we know others aren’t doing their fair share, and that it would be difficult to force them, the idea doesn’t work. Given that others aren’t doing their fair share, Singer asks how could we stop at the fair rate, when we know children are dying preventable deaths that could have been stopped had we done more. 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
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
More people are likely to donate if they would be rewarded so that they are helped just like the recipitant. She states that there are several donors in third world countries that would gladly give away their kidney’s for only the cost of $1,000. They are in such a desperate time they would sell their body parts, just to help their family survive. Another reason why organ sales should be legal is because it would stop the illegal trade of kidney’s.
Examples and explanations- She cites an article from The Lancet explaining that even though donating a kidney is a risk, tons of people do risky things all of the time, from jobs to just pure pleasure. It does not make sense for the government to ban something that is a risk because they need to do it to sustain life. She also cites an article from Michael Finkel, of the New York Times. This article states that the money people who are diagnosed with end stage renal disease spend on dialysis would cover the expense of the transplant, and reward the donor with as much as $25,000.
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.
In this case “former Detroit Lion Luther Elliss was frequently involved in charity events and invested heavily in local businesses. For his relatives, Elliss paid for things like landscaping and a wedding.” as this was out of the kindness of his heart it also ended up coming to backfire on him. But also he is one of the very few that began to start changing his life around he went back to school and also is helping coach a high school football team. As its nice to hand out and help family and friends it's
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
“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.
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
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.
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.
He believes beggars shouldn’t be looked down on because they don’t have jobs. Abani, Hughes, and Orwell all claim that society pressures people into believing certain things and acting in certain ways by, making people learn from others mistakes, pressuring humans into doing what others do, and
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.
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.
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
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.