Please help the children of this third world country by donating just one dollar a day. You can’t turn on the television without seeing a commercial asking you to donate to help feed the impoverished or to supply much needed medicine. In the article, “What Should a Billionaire Give – and What Should You?” the author attempts to make a point of giving money to charitable organizations, much like these commercials. Peter Singer’s article dives into the realm of philanthropy in order to aid the impoverished by appealing to logic through reasoning and statistics, and emotion by using examples throughout the writing. However, the author is discredited because of his ethics and controversial personal views from the past.
This article first appeared in The New York Times, which is targeted to an upscale readers three times more likely to have a postgraduate degree and twice as likely to make more than $100,000 per year. The author, Peter Singer, is an Australian born ethical philosopher with controversial views such as stating that infants with a handicap should be euthanized but is strongly against the death penalty. American
…show more content…
He assumes that the billionaires are giving to ease their consciences or to generate favorable publicity. The author points out that David Kirkpatrick, a technology writer for Forbes Magazine, believes Gates’ turn to philanthropy was a result of the antitrust issues Microsoft had in the U.S. and European Union. Singer moves on to question whether there is an obligation for the wealthy to give, and if so, how much should they give. While some strongly believe the rich have worked hard for their money and, therefore, should be able to spend it as they please, others believe that “social capital” is responsible for 90 percent of what they earn. A flat 90 percent income tax for everyone is socialism which, in turn, has obvious negative
In Singer’s essay, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” the author begins by presenting the reader with the heartfelt scenario of the cost of a child vs. the cost of a new TV. Singer discusses how child trafficking with the intent of organ harvesting is the equivalent of purchasing a brand-new TV because in both cases one can improve conditions for children around the world, either by saving their life or by donating money to help them. Next, Singer goes into the narrative of a man named Bob. Bob has his entire life savings put into a precious Bugatti. However, Bob must make the choice to save his car or to flip the lever and save a child stuck on the railroad tracks.
Huttmann’s argues in this essay that the person should have the right to choose to live or die if they are suffering from a fatal illness. And the author’s purpose within this essay is both personal and social. The essay starts with one of the audience of the Phil Donahue show shouting “ murderer” after Huttmann shares her story about mac , a cancer patient. Huttmann wrote this interesting introduction so she could draw the audience and show the effect of feeling of justification throughout the latter portion of this essay. That introduction leaves the readers curiosity about why are the people calling her mean names.
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?
There can be no doubt that people should be morally free to live their own lives and pursue and develop their own interests, to a certain degree at the very least. This necessitates then that a person is morally permitted to dedicate one’s time, energy, and money to activities that don’t directly have an impact on famine relief or similar worthy causes. For example, it could frequently happen and has happened whereby certain pursuits and recreations have beneficial and favourable outcomes and consequences that could not have been foreseen. My argument lies with the issue that if people are not free to follow their intellectual interests when it is not obvious what positive impact they might have, or whether they would have any positive repercussions at all, humanity in general could be worse off than we actually are. This is tied to Singer’s argument if people are obligated to do as much as they possibly can, to aid famine relief, they would have to give up many of their own special projects and interests in order to do so.
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.
One argument that Singer provides in “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” is that individuals who give aid to those in need are probably more well off than those who do not give aid. However, regardless of where one stands financially, aid should still be given by all those who can give. A counter argument that Singer provides is that one might say if one individual gives, they may think that if more people also gave, then they would not have to give as much. A person might find it unfair if they are contributing more to benefit others than what other individuals are giving. In addition to this, one way this could be done would be by adding the “burden” of aiding overseas countries through taxes.
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
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
The wealthier one gets, it seems, the more one rationalizes their decisions and actions. The more one stains their morality little by little until they no longer need to choose what’s right and wrong but what benefits them. Whether it’s right or wrong is then irrelevant. From people to companies, wealth is the source of
He uses examples of cases in which people committed crimes involuntarily. Eagleman also cites examples of mental diseases in which the victims have no control over their impulses or actions. In other words, there are people who simply cannot stop themselves from making horrible or regrettable decisions. Therefore, this essay challenges the assumption that people have the power to choose how they live their lives and to make the right decisions at all times. Eagleman addresses the readers directly in order to be able to demonstrate that he understands that his readers will find his ideas radical.
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.
The Singer Solution to World Poverty Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics, wrote an article featured in The New York Times Magazine. “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” which explored Singer’s idea of taking all money which is not being used for necessities, from people across the world. This idea would, as Singer purpose, is supposedly supposed to solve the World’s poverty issue. However with an issue this complex, a solution is not always going to black and white, thus it is important to weigh the pros and cons before rejecting or endorsing this idea.
Singer’s Solution Good or Not? Who wouldn’t want to find a solution to end or reduce poverty in the world? A utilitarian philosopher, Peter Singer stated his own solution in his essay called “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”. Singer’s solution is simple: people shouldn’t be spend their money on luxuries, instead they should donate their money to overseas aid organizations. Peter uses two characters in his essay in hope to get to the hearts and minds of the people, and encourage them to donate.