The article is thought provoking. It alerts the reader to new less commonly known facts on poverty such as the fact that it takes more money to only combat causes of poverty instead of actually strategically preventing it from happening in the first place. a. The author does not make any reference to prior research. b.
In Singer’s “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” he argues the importance of donation to poor people, which could mean the difference between life and death for children in need. He gives an example for Bob, who has an opportunity to save a child’s life, but he could lose his worthy car. He makes a comparison between people who are capable to donate money to save children lives and people who have no chance to help or donate under certain situation such as Bob. He also encourages people who are in the middle class to donate at a minimum of 200$; furthermore, he thinks that people should donate more like 200.000$ when they consider the level of sacrifice that they would demand of Bob’s situation. He gives some estimates for the amount of donations that people should give to overseas.
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.
I also agree with the fact that many people do step down from helping in any situation if they see someone give too much money, when they can only give a little embarrassing amount. Instead of that other person helping they are really damaging others from getting help. If everyone just gave or helped a little that would be enough for everyone else to see and to feel guilt for not stepping in and it would also cross out others stating that they do not have much to give; if in case everyone gave a reasonable amount that no one could not afford. For Singer it was about keeping your morals in place and that one ought to do what is known to be the right thing to do. To help in any way possible and in doing so the world would be very different and there would be less
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.
I would have to disagree with Singer assumption that we are all trained to believe that death is always portrayed with a negative connotation, if anything many people believe that death is not the end. Whether we become angels, spirits, or reincarnations many people want have a positive perspective when they will eventually perish. Of course one could argue that beliefs like these exist in part due to the fear of death itself and expecting that we continue existing in some fashion offers provides some relief. In regards to the question, people here have already given answers that would I agree with, assuming that Mrs. Bennett wasn't embellishing her story in order to frame both her and her husband in a optimistic light, I also can believe
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
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
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.
Philip Manning 12504697 Q) Evaluate Peter Singer’s argument in ‘Famine, Affluence and Morality’. There can be no doubt that Peter Singer’s argument in ‘Famine, Affluence and Morality’ is unrealistic, unfair and not sustainable. Singer’s arguments are valid arguments but not sound. In order to get a clear and balanced view of my arguments which disprove the Singer article, it is first necessary to examine and lay out the main aspects of Singer’s argument in ‘Famine, Affluence and Morality’. My arguments against Singer’s claims shall then be detailed and examined in depth.
In 1950, about 3.8 million American households had a television, as of December 2022, that number has skyrocketed to 122.4 million. We all know about tv, it sits in our living rooms and we watch every once in a while when an actual decent show comes on, but you may not know how influential television has been in our lives. Our social norms and the way we act have all been influenced by what we watch on the big screen. The people we watch in shows and movies become our role models and who we aspire to be. Throughout its years, television has been used as a platform of change and helps bring awareness to different issues.
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?
Reading Question 1: Do you agree with Paul Taylor that nature has intrinsic value, or is nature 's value based its usefulness to human beings? What sorts of considerations could lead to the view that nature has intrinsic value? Paul Taylor advocates that society should respect nature as it is intrinsically of value to life. Wit this view, every aspect of life needs to be regarded as valuable. Just because they are here means that it is of view to mankind.
Why must the rich pay more tax to help the poor? Although taxing more on rich seems unfair for the rich, it is necessary that rich people should pay more tax and the amount they pay are based on their incomes. First of all, the important reason that can be presented is that the rich people have utilized the public system more. As Elizabeth Warren said, "There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.”
