More handpicked essays just for you.
Peter singer famine affluence morality summary
Peter singer famine affluence morality summary
Peter singer famine affluence morality summary
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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.
What do you do when charitable organizations call you asking for money? Do you donate money to the organization or do you ignore it? In 1999 Peter Singer wrote the article The Singer Solution to World Poverty where he argues “that each one of us with wealth surplus to his or her essential needs should be giving most of it to help people suffering poverty so dire as to be life-threatening.” Singer does this by introducing his article with two very different examples: a woman who saved a child’s life and a man who killed a child to save his Bugatti. Secondly, he proposes how much money would be required to save a child from starvation, $200, and explains why more people do not give even though in the grand scheme of things $200 is not that much money.
Philosopher Peter Singer is the writer of an essay, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” that discusses famine and the role we, as human beings, have in order to help get rid of famine. Singer gives many different examples of why we should help those in need. One of those examples has to do with a child drowning. In the scenario, he is walking past a pond and sees a child drowning. He believes that saving the child from drowning is his moral obligation.
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.
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
Question 2 Peter Singer in his paper “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” described a principle I know as “Singers Cardinal Principle.” The principle reads “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable more importance, we ought, morally to do it.” Singer is saying that if one person has a opportunity to prevent something wrong form occurring without that persons action ending up causing the same or worst results to happen, then that person is morally obligated to do such action. In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” Singer argues that people who are from wealthy countries should change the way they live to living committed to helping those people in need.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Singer utilizes many rhetorical strategies-- including appealing to pathos, repetition, and comparison of statistics-- to defend his argument: “Whatever money you’re spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away.” He adopts an analytical and indignant tone in order to convince Americans to donate money to save the lives of millions of children. Through the utilization of pathos, Peter Singer introduces the reader to Dora, a woman in an unfortunate situation-- having to choose between a new television and a child’s life-- that makes the reader morally unsettled. For example, Dora receives a thousand dollars by bringing a homeless boy to an address, later discovering that the child was sold to organ peddlers-- he will be killed if she does not intervene.
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
As he included, “if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally to do it”(Singer 332). As you said, yes people should help others, but they shouldn’t put themselves in tough situation or “break the bank” trying to help someone else. Also, Singer stated, “The charitable man may be praised, but the man who is not charitable is not condemned” (Singer 334). I think he meant that, it can be the right thing to do to help someone in poverty, but it is not always wrong if you cannot help them. I agree with your opinion that people want to spend money on things that make them happy.
