Compare And Contrast Essay On Peter Singer

We are divided into tiers based solely on the amount of money we or our family makes every year; the lower class, middle class, and upper class are examples of this division. Within each layer there are tiers as well that separate us from the other people who make around the same amount of money as us. The lower class has the people who are living paycheck to paycheck but also the people who don’t even have enough money to buy basic necessities. When it comes to aiding the poor philosophers Peter Singer and Jan Narveson have two opposing views. Singer believes that we shouldn’t spend money on items we don’t need and should instead give that money to charity, while Narveson counters that we don’t have an obligation to aid people in need. Both

Singer focuses on helping people who can’t afford to feed their families and are likely to die from their conditions of poverty. The philosopher insists that we as individuals don’t need these little luxuries in life and should instead donate the money to charities that will use the money to save someone’s life. The first reason he gives for his conclusion is that it’s no sweat to donate money and compares it to flipping a switch. In Peter Singer’s World Poverty Argument philosopher Peter Unger’s example of Bob and his car is examined. Bob purchased an expensive Bugatti that was supposed to set him off for the future. Bob loves this car and takes exceptional care of it. One day he decides to park his car next to some train tracks and walk alongside them, when suddenly, an out of control train comes down the tracks and is heading straight for a child standing on the tracks. Bob only has one option to save this child and that is to divert the train causing it to crash into his Bugatti. Bob chooses his car, and therefore his financial security, over the life of this unknown child, when all he had to do to save the child’s life was to

Narveson believes that people with extra money to spend don’t have a moral obligation to give it to those in life-threatening poverty. He concludes that since we don’t have anything to do with the money problems of others, then we shouldn’t be forced to aid them. The philosopher does believe that individuals with money can donate to charities if they would like, but there’s no moral obligation to do so. Narveson furthers his argument by explaining killing and letting die and starving and allowing to starve. Killing and letting someone die are arguably different from each other; when it comes to killing someone you commit an action that causes the direct death of another person, but by letting someone die you simply don’t help them (Narveson 2). By letting someone die you’re not the direct reason of why that person died and Narveson begs the question “How can you be said to be the ‘cause’ of something which would have happened if you didn’t exist?” The philosopher also believes that starving someone and allowing them to starve are two different things as well. If we did something to cause the starvation of someone then we are at fault for the damages we have done, but if this person is starving and we have nothing to do with it then we’re not the ones to blame (Narveson 2). These two examples connect to and support Narverson’s conclusion because since the majority of us aren’t