Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
How social factors can affect individuals views about death & dying
Opinions on life after death
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
How social factors can affect individuals views about death & dying
Opinions on life after death
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Singer Solution to World Poverty” written by Peter Singer. 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. The article narrates that the philosophy Peter Singer demonstrate about the world poverty.
What do you do when charitable organizations call you asking for money? Do you donate money to the organization or do you ignore it? Peter Singer would argue that many people ignore it, and in 1999 he 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 introduces his article with two exceptionally 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 a majority people do not give even though $200 is not actually that much money.
Yes, I agree with Peter singers argument on duty to render aid to others to an extent because it is the right thing to do for example take the drowning child scenario into consideration. The importance of saving the life of the child far outweighs the risks it doesn't necessarily need to even be a child when you see someone in need of help and you are able to help you ought to help them. Also the booze cruise scenario when everybody is off drinking,partying, and having a good time upon asking for their help they say they're to busy drinking even though saving the lives of the 20 naval officers is what they ought to do because it outweighs drinking instead you ought to try and save as many lives as you can. The parts I don't agree with Singer are his fair share view which says that if others aren’t doing enough you are obligated to do more than your fair share and when he says give till it hurts at all times because it is required of you that is a bit extreme and necessarily isn't true because for example in the drowning child argument if you're unable to help perhaps because you're a paraplegic then it isn't required of you.
So my issue with Peter Singer's argument is it's infallible to tell someone that they should not be spending money on luxuries, when they themselves are buying tickets to see a movie. I believe in "practice what you preach" and "actions speak louder than words". Which really puts me off about what Singer was trying to communicate. Now I understand his thoughts of trying to challenge people to not be selfish and think inwardly. But in that process, he himself fell prey to his own vices.
Peter Singer’s believes that we have a moral obligation to help others unless it will cause something else comparably bad to happen. He starts by comparing how much some poorer nations give in assistance to reduce suffering than some of the richer nations. Then he goes on to talk about how major emergencies are alike but there magnitude is different and how in many parts of the world people are dying from malnutrition and lack of food. He says that our “moral conceptual scheme- needs to be altered and with it, the way of life that has come to be taken for granted in our society” (Rachels, 155). I agree with Singer that we have come to take a lot for granted in our society, there are many things that we never have to experience that others in
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.
Peter Singer defines a “moral creature” as first being an“intelligent social mammal”, which is then “likely to evolve” to become a moral creature. He says that a moral creature has responses and inhibitions to their actions towards others, has the capacity to reason, and is able to reflect more deliberately and consciously on their choices. Some of the moral issues presented to Singer by the interview were: torturing people, utilitarianism vs. deontology, the origin of morals, normative judgements, racism, sexism, climate change, global poverty, and caring for ourselves and not others. Peter Singer’s view on moral progress is that we have expanded our “circle” more and more as time goes on. He feels this way, because at first, we were only concerned about those we knew during the tribal times, then as time went on and the number of people around us grew, we expanded our moral circle to our nation and to those sharing the same religious faith as us, then in the twentieth century, we officially accepted that we owed the same amount of moral equality to all of those around us.
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
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.
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.
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.
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. Singer’s argument exhorts us to give based on the controversial principle of comparable moral significance, to donate any income beyond that which is marginally necessary. Singer justifies this based on the knowledge that the suffering of a poor person should be no less significant to that of an affluent one (Singer, 1972).
In the following passage from the novel We Were the Mulvaneys, Joyce Carol Oates laments that even though most everything in one’s surrounding is dying, not everyone has managed to find the adequate amount of maturity to accept the fact that they are not immortal, even though the idea of death is difficult to come to terms with. Oates conveys this universal idea and characterizes the narrator through the usage of a depressing tone and dismal imagery. The tone set in the passage is fairly dark and depressing. An “eleven or maybe twelve,” year old child should not be fixated on the idea that “every heart beat is past and gone.”
Death is viewed, mostly, as a bad thing. This is because a life is being taken from people who love the dying person. But in this book, it seems to be that Mitch Albom is shedding a light on as to why death is a happy thing. Death brought Mitch and Morrie back together. Death gave Mitch hope to live a happy life.
Animals Rights In society, animals are being killed for food, fur, and experiments. This raises the question is it ethical to kill other animals for our own person gain? As human, we live in a society where it is humane to kill other animals when it comes to survival, clothing and to help cure diseases. But this is not really answering the question why is this okay?