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.
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.
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
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.
(P2) 3) Suffering and death in the world can be relieved by monetary donations. (P3) C) We ought to donate as much as we can provided we don’t sacrifice anything of comparable moral importance. (from P1, P2, P3) Singer accepts the first premise that death and starvation from lack of basic needs are bad, which is difficult to dispute.
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.
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 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
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. This is, in a way, a decision people face every single day. As a society,
People who are indigent are at a disadvantage on receiving healthcare and other benefits that high class people already receive. For example, in a nationwide study of American students, 36% of the parents with the lowest income read to their children on a daily basis compared to the 62% of parents with high income. In “Democracy for All” the author wrote, “...people have customarily viewed in other villages as at least strangers and at worst mortal enemies” (Wilson, 283). Almost every adult's level of wealth is close to the level on which they were raised. Most of those who gain significantly more wealth than they were born to are professional athletes, professional entertainers, lottery winners, and those awarded large sums from lawsuits.
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. For Singers first argument he uses an
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.
Society is a dangerous and ruthless beast. A person’s wish to belong in society can ultimately be their demise to not only their financial stability but as well as their social status which is ironic, for the actions they take to belong only further separate them from society. These actions are particularly common amongst poor folks as they wish to be a part of society, but their poor financial decisions to spend all their earnings on exquisite items only drags them further away from society’s acceptance. In Tressie McMillan Cottom’s Reading, “The Logic of Stupid Poor People”, She describes her life as an African-American child born into a poor family who were able to manage their funds wisely and live comfortably while families similar to her’s, but to only manage to dig themselves into deep and unforgiving caverns of financial debt. I agree, for I have witnessed many cases of poverty stricken people drag themselves further into financial debt all for useless status symbols.
William Hazlitt, a renowned 19th century author, highlights in his famous text “On the Want of Money” his ideas on money and how it plays a part in how a person lives their life. Hazlitt presents the case that money cannot buy happiness as it superficial, but yet life without money will ultimately end in sorrow and “to be scrutinized by strangers, and neglected by friends.” By his extreme control over rhetorical strategies such as diction, syntax, and imagery Hazlitt was able to accurately portray his beliefs on the effect of money on people. The most potent strategy in Hazlitt’s delivery is his diction; he uses this to stress the importance of wealth.
In his speech “Every Man a king” senator Huey Long suggested to reconstruct the wealth in America. He describes the current economic crisis as devastating because 10 people own about 85% of America’s wealth when the rest of the population does not have anything. Some even starve to death. The purpose of his speech is to create the effect of urgency. He wanted to limit the wealth one’s can have.