More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay role of emotion in moral decisions making
A short essay on moral judgments
Subjective moral judgement quizlet
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
From a young age were taught that everyone needs help and that we should always try to help others. We tended to want to do our part no matter how small to help others but is that always a good thing by helping are we really helping or just creating future problems? In “Lifeboat Ethics” by Garrett Hardin, Hardin tries to reason with those people who always want to help he explains why foreign aid is not beneficial for any party involved. The author uses pathos appeal to address the audience’s values, beliefs, and assumptions about foreign aid. He understands that most of his audiences believe that if they can help then they should.
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.
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.
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.
Think again about Bob and his Bugatti. Unlike Dora, Bob did not have to look into the eyes of the child he was sacrificing for his own material comfort.” Both “Why Don’t We Complain” and “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” are similar because it explains how people would rather save their own possessions, causing them to live with guilt for the rest of their
Singer is no stranger to writing moral arguments, having written many different books and articles in the past on a wide range of ethical debates. “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” originally printed in the New York Times in the fall of 1999 just before Singer began to work at Princeton University, is intended for the common man, a middle-class citizen who makes average wages and reads popular newspapers. As Singer is a professor of ethics, the article is structured around the
Singer is a utilitarian philosopher, along with the likes of other famous philosophers such as David Hume and Henry Sidgwick. Utilitarianism is a type of consequentialism in which it is believed that the right act to perform is the one that produces the most utility, or good. When you view the previous example with this mind set, you can see how the varying situations and choices wouldn’t matter, all that would matter is the fact that both decisions would lead to the same consequence. Yet, Singer doesn’t believe that you have to adapt to his ethics in order to agree that there is something wrong with the fact that people are quick to find fault with Dora, yet have no issue with the choice of the American consumer.
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.
I’m falling asleep at the wheel. I’ve been driving for 16 hours straight, hauling freight across the border between Nevada and California. Yawning, my eyes briefly flutter shut and I lose sight of the road. My eyes flick open and I straighten up my lorry. This post originally appeared on Kotaku UK.
