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.
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.
Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” lays out a strong argument on why we are morally obligated to help those in need if we can. He first lays down a platform by saying that suffering and dying from starvation is bad, which most reasonable people would agree with. He builds on this by saying that if we can prevent something bad without causing any harm, then we are morally obligated to do it. This argument, much like the first, is one that would be widely accepted since most people wouldn’t want something bad to occur if they can prevent it.
Class Stereotypes Stereotypes are seen as overgeneralized ideas, images, or beliefs of a person based on a group of people. Stereotypes can either be taken or said in a negative or positive way but mostly seen in a negative way. Stereotypes are formed on a life experience, idea or a belief a person may have towards one person based on the person’s gender, race, religion or social class. The most common stereotypes are of the social classes which are the: upper, middle and lower class.
Peter Singer in his famous paper “Famine, Affluence and Morality” begins with assumptions “The suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad” also he gives his second assumption that “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it”. Singer gives an application of his principle, by ”the drowning child in the pond” case. Imagine you are walking past a pond and you see a little toddler drowning in the shallow pond, you have 2 options now: first- you can pull out he child and save him, however you will ruin your favorite expensive shoes.
Article Summary, Paraphrase, Quotation Paper I. Article Summary In his article titled “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, Peter Singer aims to show that we are morally obligated to help those in need. He begins by mentioning the situation in East Bengal where millions are dying due to lack of food and medical attention. He mentions that the situation is terrible but not hopeless. Singer says that the help being offered by the individuals and by the government is nowhere near the kind of help that the situation requires to be resolved.
The philosophical issue that we have considered since the Mid-Term that has interested me the most was Global Poverty. Singer’s moral principle “If is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it. I agree with this fully because everybody should be willing to help others when they are suffering without having to thinking about it. I just really understood where Peter Singer was coming from. The example he made about the toddler flailing in the pond and if I would get out of my car to help the child I will be late for work.
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
In this paper I will be arguing against Peter Singer’s views on poverty, which he expresses in his paper “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”. Singer argues that all people with wealth surplus to their essential needs are morally obligated to prevent the suffering of those in dire situations. I will argue that you can not hold people morally obligated to prevent the suffering of others, and that people can only be held morally obligated to prevent suffering that they themselves caused. To begin, we will look at Singers beliefs and arguments regarding poverty and the responsibility of people to help those in need. Singer’s first arguments revolves around a girl named Dora, who is a retired schoolteacher, who is barely making a living writing
The Singer Solution to World Poverty Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics, wrote an article featured in The New York Times Magazine. “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” which explored Singer’s idea of taking all money which is not being used for necessities, from people across the world. This idea would, as Singer purpose, is supposedly supposed to solve the World’s poverty issue. However with an issue this complex, a solution is not always going to black and white, thus it is important to weigh the pros and cons before rejecting or endorsing this idea.
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.
Political philosophers are in disagreement regarding the perimeters of the ethical duty to provide international aid to impoverished countries. In his 1972 work, “Famine, Affluence, and Mortality”, Peter Singer argues that affluent countries have a moral duty to reduce suffering due to poverty and famine if doing so would not cause them to sacrifice anything morally significant or cause great harm. To illustrate his point, Singer introduces the hypothetical of a drowning child. Singers hypothetical says if a man was to notice a child drowning in a shallow pond then he has an ethical obligation to save the child even if that means that the man’s clothes would get muddy because it is much worse for the child to drown than to get your clothes muddy. Singer makes no distinction for proximity or number of people available to offer aid.
In Famine, Affluence and Morality, Peter Singer provides us with a moral challenge. He argues that “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it. By "without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance”. Which means that if there is way that we prevent something bad without losing something similar to that stature, it morally right to do it. I agree with his agreement.
Here I will lay out each philosophers viewpoint and then highlight some of the differences between the two, as well as draw my own conclusion as to which method is more compatible with my own stance. Perhaps I offer a personal view that may incorporate own perspective independent of either. Adopting a utilitarian approach in his 1971 essay, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Peter Singer makes an argument for personal responsibility. He feels under necessity to speak about the lack of interest from those with the ability to help, each of us should extend our resources as far as they will reach to help others in need. Asserting his position that humanity has an obligation and ethical responsibility to recognize the need of others and give as
In Peter Singer’s article entitled ‘Famine, Affluence, and Morality’, he discusses the topic of poverty in Bangladesh and goes on to talk about its causes and the ways in which it can be somewhat eliminated in Bangladesh. Singer puts forth a statement stating that if there is a way in which we can avoid a negative outcome in a situation, without sacrificing anything of similar moral value, then we are obligated to do just that. Another point he mentions is that people would feel less obligated to give money to a person in need if they were living in an area far away from that individual as opposed to being within the proximity of that person. In addition, Singer also believes that with the transportation methods at one’s disposal in this
