Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Solutions for hunger in america
Solutions for hunger in america
Peter singer solution to poverty
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Solutions for hunger in america
Solutions for hunger in america
Peter singer solution to poverty
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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.
c) Peter Singer’s solution to World hunger/poverty “The Singer Solution to World Hunger/Poverty” is an article written by peter singer where he argues that our patterns of spending money is immortal because the money we are wasting on luxury, which are things that are not needed for survival, could be used to help save many children lives that are dying of starvation. Singer states that whatever we don’t need for survival, which are our fancy diners, new clothes, and our vacation, that all the money we are spending on those things are morally impermissible and the money should be donated to a charity like UNICEF to help save children’s life. Singer states that we are morally responsible for any act that we knowingly failed to prevent that does not result in the greatest good for the greatest number. He provided an example of a guy named Bob who had to decide if he should save a child’s life from a runaway train or if he should save his Bugatti. Of course, Bob chose to save his car instead of the child’s life and while Bob did not physically kill the child, he is still responsible for the death of the child.
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.
With poverty being one the world’s biggest issues, it is essential that we shine some light upon this matter. An author, Peter Singer, wrote “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” and he argues that the amount of money we spend on ourselves instead of helping someone in need is immoral. As Singer said, “world poverty can largely be solved if we in the wealthier nations did our moral duty and gave much more than we currently do to those in greatest need” (230). We are a society that does not really like to share a piece our wealth with someone else because of all the hours we did just to get that paycheck. To make this statement more credible, Singer uses facts and statistics from the Conference Board and other sources, personal facts and giving
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 his article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, Peter Singer condemns the inactivity of affluent countries in aiding East Bengali refugees. Building on the discussion of famine relief, he moves to argue for his major contention, which is the altering of moral conceptual scheme so that affluent countries become morally obliged to assist needy regions, thereby eliminating inequality (Akintayo, 2013). This essay will first identify major arguments in support of the contention. It then applies the framework of critical thinking to evaluate each argument and culminate in reflecting on the previous analysis.
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.
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