Altruism In Peter Singer's The Most Good You Can Do

Furthermore, Singer not only expects too much, but doesn’t realize luxuries and necessities mean different things to different people. Singer overwhelms the reader by stating one number to expecting a lot more. Singer fails to mention how much people struggle in America alone. Sure, it would be great to end world hunger, but what about giving to those in need in the US? According to Unicef, the United States has the second highest population of child poverty in the list of developed countries, (Unicef). Although it would be wonderful to be able to help all in need, sometimes it isn’t possible when Americans are struggling themselves to pay bills and raise their own.

Instead, Singer says we should “give away enough to ensure that the consumer society, dependent as it is on people spending on trivia rather than giving to famine relief, would slow down and perhaps disappear entirely.” Singer continues to argues how this is would be a good thing as “consumer society has a distorting effect on the goals and purposes of its members,” however, it is clear how this is actually a very bad thing. Capitalism, in its very basic nature, strives off the notion of self-interest. People, corporations, and countries, all work for the purpose of bettering themselves. Our motivation to work hard in order to gain wealth is due to the reward of having a better life, enjoying nicer things, etc. If by Singer’s argument, we were to give up all of our hard earned extra money, we would have no driving force to actually make that money, as we would not be able to use it on ourselves. Our society is the way it is because we work hard to better ourselves, gain as much wealth for ourselves, and ultimately spend it on ourselves. Singer’s argument, although applicable in a society where everybody works to better everyone else and the entirety of humanity, is not realistic in the capitalistic society we live in

Peter Singer’s argument that supports giving more money to charity is filled with convincing points, but many objections to his argument are not addressed in his essay. The idea that people are entitled to their money and therefore can do whatever they want with it is one of the biggest opposition to Singer’s argument. Singer somewhat addresses this objection, explaining that he met a man with the same opposition and wanted to talk to him about how people who earn large sums of money often times do so due to favorable social circumstances. Although this is true, it does not support the idea that people should be obligated to spend their money on charity, even if the money they earned was through lucky circumstances that others have not experienced. Peter Singer’s

I don’t agree with the way he tries to demand that people donate every extra dollar they have, people do what they can when they can. It was a little confusing when he went into his examples they were a little extreme and were more about morals then whether or not you should donate to charities. Singer started off with a good argument but lost the readers when he became too pushy.

He also gives us their individual thoughts when they gave the money as contributions to the much bigger cause. Bill Gates gave away roughly 35 percent of his fortune and quoted “to whom much has been given, much is expected.” Warren Buffet gave 31 billion dollars of his money to the Gates foundation and 6 billion dollars to other charitable opportunities. Zell Kravinsky gave up most of his 45-million-dollar estate to the cause and now “lives modestly.” Joanne Rowling donated enough money that it knocked her off of Forbes Billionaires list and quoted, “You have a moral responsibility when you’ve been given far more than you need, to do wise things with it and give intelligently.” Finally, Singer introduces the “fair share” theory—calculating how much would be required to ensure that the world’s poorest people have a chance at a decent life, and then divide this sum among the affluent. (intext) Singer uses Piketty and Saez’s top ten percent of the bracket of annual income to calculate a “fair share” amount that each level of the top ten percent could donate to help the cause. This would generate lots of money to help the children in poverty and that are close to death. But in the end Singer rejects

Altruism is the selflessness acts of an individual in which they involve themselves into the lives of other individuals in the hopes of positively affecting their feelings and/or well-beings. “Altruism and empathy permit the assessment of the extent to which volunteers perform voluntary service for selfless reasons” (Veludo-de-Oliveira, Pallister, & Foxall, 2015, p. 375). Veludo-de-Oliveira, Pallister, and Foxall believe in order for an interaction to be an altruistic one, “Firstly, the act must have the intention of benefit-ing others; secondly, the act must be initiated voluntarily by the helper; and thirdly, there should be no expectation of any reward from external sources.” (2015, p. 378).

Peter Singer is a philosopher who has a utilitarian view about how humans should live their lives. His central claim is that people should sacrifice the money they earn and put almost all of it towards effective charities. He believes that this money would have been used to buy luxuries and those are things that you don’t need. It is also his mentality that if we are able to avoid something bad from happening like death, without sacrificing anything that holds that much significance to us, then we ought to do it. Donating our extra money to save or dramatically improve the lives of those in poverty around the world is the morally right thing to do. Even though, I know about the extreme hardship people face around the world, I disagree with

We feel a moral obligation to our fellow humans to help them when they are need and not see them suffer. What isn’t clear is how far that moral obligation extends. Peter Singer argues we should help our fellow man as much as we can up to giving up something nearly as important for us. This would entail donating most of one’s money to charity leaving just enough for the necessities of one life. In this paper I will push back against Singer’s view and try to argue that we don’t always have a moral obligation to help everyone we can.

In the Ted Talk, The Why and the How of Effective Altruism, Singer presents the story of two-year old, Wang Yue. Wang Yue was hit by a van and left bleeding on the road. Many people walked by her without helping and by the time Wang Yue was taken to the hospital she was pronounced dead. However, when Singer asked the crowd if they would have stopped to help, many people affirmed that they would. Singer believes that you cannot give yourself so much moral credit because a person’s decision not to help a child like Wang Yue when put in that position is no different than someone who doesn’t help a child when not in this position. 19,000 children a day are dying from preventable diseases while people spend excess money to go on cruises, buy new

Most people in today’s world are self-absorbed. It seems as if everything they do is in order to benefit themselves. In The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, Franklin writes, “few people in public affairs act from a meer view of the the good of their country, yet men primarily considered that their own and their country’s interest was united, and did not act from a principle of benevolence” (73). In our society, businesses donate to charities to gain more customers, superstars fund organizations to improve their image, and students volunteer to improve their resumes. Most people ask “what is in it for me?” rather than “what can I do to improve this organization or person?” Throughout Franklin’s book, it became clear to me that he was acting on the principle of benevolence. He was constantly bettering society through his deeds with no regard to his own gain. Learning how Franklin ingrained benevolence into his daily life caused me to reflect on the benevolence present in my life. I realized that my mom is a primary example of benevolence. I also see that I lack the trait, but can work on it, and see that it can be displayed through small acts of kindness.

Altruism, in which one selflessly devotes to the welfare of another without expecting anything in return, often elicits an inexplicable and intangible surge of joy, in which one gains a sense of purpose. For example, I have observed the therapists at PRANA, whom altruistically devote up to an hour, when initially only allotted a half-hour time slot, programming individualized treatments for each patient. In their hour- long treatments, they create a non-fraternizing relationship with their patients that is fully functional on trust, empathy, and generosity. Devoting that extra time to each patient gives not only the

American society is often involved in circumstances that necessitate members to behave, or believe, in ways that they do not anticipate and that cause them to undertake actions that contradict their beliefs or values (Kahan, 2006). For example, for the 2016 presidential election in the United States, a large portion of the centralistic American population voted for the right-wing candidate, Donald Trump, not because they supported his political view, but because they did not want the leftist candidate, Hillary Clinton, to be elected. Another example can be witnessed through the actions of the “social smoking” population of America; many American smokers are trying to give up tobacco but, nevertheless feel the need to smoke a cigarette when in the presence of other smokers.

With the eruption of the computer age, many Americans now have the access to information around the world through means of the internet. Non-profit organizations take advantage of the people’s access to internet by uploading their own advertisements in the virtual web. Compassionate International, a non-profit organization, and with the objective to fight against poverty, uploads their advertisement online, showing a picture of little children who are in bad conditions, telling us to help the organization by donating. This tells us that the people in American society have excess in money, meaning that the people not only have the means to take care of themselves, but also help other people too. But, even if the Americans can exhibit the altruistic

“Life is a gift, and it offers us the privilege, opportunity, and responsibility to give something back by becoming more.” Anthony Robbins’ enriching words have acted as a framework for the type of life I want to lead. Giving back to the community can be executed in a variety of methods; I have done so through volunteerism and legislation.

However, with the information from the article, I feel that I can justify my original thought. When I think of charity, I think of it in a positive light. People are encouraged to be selfless and humble, and I think donating money to charity is the easiest and quickest way to do so. In addition, people are also encouraged to volunteer. I volunteer on a regular basis at a soup kitchen in Oakland. When people ask me why I volunteer, they automatically assume it is for school. I always tell them I do it because I like it, which is the truth. I admit that I used to think I had an exceptionally good heart for choosing to volunteer, but this article has given me a new perspective. I now see selflessness as an emotional impulse rather than “something that’s very abstract and