Some of the main issues facing the world today are the issues of poverty, the poor, and overpopulation. As each year goes by, it becomes awfully clear that these issues are problems that must be dealt with. While many want to address and solve these issues, there tends to be a divide on how to do so. A great example of this division is how the issue is presented in these two essays – Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” and Garrett Hardin’s “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping The Poor.” While both essays are well written and make their points, they support differing sides of the issue; Stinger’s essay states that we have a moral obligation to aid the poor opposed to Hardin’s essay arguing for the case against helping the poor.
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.
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.
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
Singer’s solution attempts to bring the world together and in turn take the excess money and provide it those who fall under the poverty line. By doing this, it eliminates the indifference those who are privileged enough that live with much more than the bare minimum. However, economically speaking, this would cause absolute chaos. Singer’s solution ignores the basics of economics that makes the world run smoothly today, in addition to this heis solution closely mirrors a economic system that has failed time and time again. “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” is too drastic to be implemented, economically speaking, however another solution to world poverty would prove to be more
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 the essay that Peter Singer wrote has a main point which is to give solution to the world poverty and how to deal with with the situation to end it.
Most people are ignorant to the fact that $200 can help a diseased two year- old become a healthy six year-old in a foreign country. In his article, The Singer Solution to World Poverty, Peter Singer speaks on how everyday Americans can help those in need. This article questions the morality of mankind through the use of several stories. In this article, Singer brings the moral conscious of mankind into question by examining the habits of everyday people; although strong, his stance is flawed.
One of the main reasons why I side with Singer is the belief that if everyone just gave a little of their pay each month it wouldn 't be asking for a lot(Singer, 1972, 233). Just like we get tax dollars taken out of our paycheck I believe that we should do the same for charities and it would only be a small donation therefore it wouldn 't have a huge impact on your life. Especially when talking about donating to charities that are helping build back communities after natural disasters. I believe that these people didn 't choose this life and therefore shouldn 't have to suffer when we can help. Another reason I agree with Singer is that I truly believe people are greedy and I am guilty of this but to an extent. For an example the idea that was mentioned in the Famine fishbowl was the dog shelter commercial, I am guilty of turning the channel and not thinking about it because I have two dogs and I love them. However, when I step back now and think that it could be my dogs in this commercial so why should I turn my eye and hope that someone else with do it. I should be giving money that I know I can give to help those animals rather than spending it on another pair of shoes that I can live without. We can also see this through
The Life You Can Save by Peter Singer is a book explaining that our current response to world poverty is not only lacking, but ethically weak. He argues that we need to change our views of what is involved in living a moral life. Throughout the book, Peter proposes ways to save money to donate and then giving it to reliable charities and also, he offers a seven-point plan that mixes personal philanthropy, local activism, and political awareness to help us play our part in bringing about change. In response to this book, some people have taken Singer’s advice and started to follow his plan towards helping end world poverty, while others have criticized him and exclaimed that it is not his place to tell people what to do. I myself agree with
One of Singer’s main and most stressed points was that whenever one has extra, luxury, money, they should not spend it on themselves (new clothes, new car, vacation etc.), but should rather give every penny of it away to those less fortunate. “That 's right: I 'm saying that you shouldn 't buy that new car, take that cruise, redecorate the house or get that pricey new suit. After all, a $1,000 suit could save five children 's lives.” (Singer, 1999) I firmly believe that if you work hard for a wage, you are entitled to the right to spend that money on whatever you deem fit, be that donating to famine relief or buying your children new bikes. To state that one does not even have a responsibility to give, but rather a duty to give away their income to the less fortunate is not only offensive to those living in a free world, but is also classist in implying that those who live in the lower class and below the poverty line are not fulfilling their ‘human duties’ in donating by saving what little extra money they have. In “Rethinking Peter Singer: A Christian Critique”, philosopher Anthony Daniels floats the idea that in order for Singer to be true to his own principles, he should withdraw all of his books from the market. For every copy of “Famine, Affluence and Morality” (for example) which is sold, Singer is, by his logic, directly causing the death or misfortune of someone in a dire situation by allowing someone else to use their money on something other than humanitarian
In the passage "The Burden of Skepticism", Carl explains how people have evolved in opening new ideas. New ideas are coming from the curiosity of questioning. Questioning comes from receiving information that seems too good to be true, individuals naturally must ask about the topic. This is what called Skepticism, the sense of doubt as to the truth of something. After reading the second passage “The Singer Solution To World Poverty” by Peter Singer, I have underwent the task of linking both passages together, including my first assumption of “linking” was comparable. After reading the second passage repeatedly, unable to a develop a comparison, however it was possible to find a way to relate them to one another. Focus from the Singer Solution
In addition, the context of “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” is crucial to understanding Singer’s purpose. Peter Singer was born in Melbourne, Australia and studied philosophy at the University of Oxford (389). Additionally, He was one of the leading thinkers behind the animal-rights movement and has written several books on ethical issues (389). “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” was published in 1999 and has received praise and criticism since its debut. Furthermore, the year 1999 was the bridge into the twenty-first century, and by this time, technology was evolving everyday as the world neared a new era of existence. With all this being said, the timing of Singer’s essay could not be more fitting. While the world is transforming
Peter Singer’s argument in, “Rich and Poor” is that we have an obligation to aid those in developing countries who are starving. What he claims is that it is immoral not to aid them and yet most of us still make no effort leaving us to be considered ignorant. Throughout his argument he made great points by providing statistics, explaining the challenges of accessibility as well as the difference between spending excess currency on luxuries rather than aiding those in poverty compared to directly being held responsible for their deaths such as murder. Singer has made a sound case with his three premises, however this is where controversy in his opinion can arise. Specifically looking at premise three, a claim that only some absolute poverty can be prevented is what can become a
It’s getting harder to have a good time. Peter Singer has argued in Practical Ethics (1993) that you are morally deficient if you eat meat, or if you fail to give a good bit of your income. Peter Singer is one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century and this has to do with his ideas on poverty, animal rights, abortions and euthanasia. Singer’s most important argument is about aid from wealthy countries to poorer ones and therefore is concentrating on his views on poverty and generally, global justice. In Peter Singer’s Famine, Affluence, and Morality, he makes the claim that we ought to give up any surplus money we might have and send it to places like Bengal to prevent people from suffering or dying. However, is this really something we are obligated to do?