Compare Oxygen Masks On A Plane And Donating To Charity

“The Singer Solution to World Poverty” appeared in the New York Times Magazine by bioethics professor Peter Singer. Singer’s solution to end world hunger and provide proper medical care has good points and effective strategies. However, other actions could take place instead of what Singer proposes by acknowledging a wider bae of people in the middle class instead of only the “prosperous” people. Singer only suggests donating to organizations that deal with overseas problems. What about the problems Americans face? How do we expect to help other struggling countries when we cannot provide the proper support to our own citizens? While providing proper nutrients and medical care like Singer suggests, organizations could also be providing educators

Singer believes that we should all give to charity until we reach a point where we lose something morally equivalent to the people starving or until we are equal. To do this, because not all private individuals would, would require some sort of force. Because this would have to happen it would essentially eliminate the notion of charity. It will no longer be a generous donation of your earnings to help others, it will be a repressive act of a totalitarian regime to try and steal your property. This will lead to a chain reaction of events that I will explain further. People work hard to earn what they have and they should be able to do what they want with it. Thievery is also immoral and it would be done on a grand scale taking almost everything people have. This raises another question, is this as immoral as letting people starve? I would argue it is close because you are taking away people’s livelihoods that they worked for and are shoving them into poverty. I know that people struggling in developing nations

The article, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” by Peter Singer provides the argument that Americans should spend some of their income to help those in need, instead of using it on luxuries that they don’t need. Singer supports his argument by indicating that we are somewhat like the characters in the story. I have mixed feelings with Singer’s claim because he expects that people have money to help, but many people could be dealing with financial problems that would limit their ability to help. It is not right that Singer should make Americans feel guilty, by using life or death situations.

The final and third counter-argument is that Singer question exactly how much we should be giving away. In this counter-argument, Singer talks of giving until one reaches marginal utility; or in the case where suffering would have greatly increased or decreased in his self, if he gave more than one can afford to give. One should avoid bad things from happening or sacrificing too much to help those in need. Giving until you reach your marginal utility is only required. “Singer believes we are obliged to give money away until our sacrifice is of comparable moral importance to the agony of people starving to death” (Specter, 1999). This is our duty to do so. An example

Kekes (2002) claim that Singer’s call for a moral obligation of the rich to help those who are poor is very

The argument made by Peter Singer states “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, [then] without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.” The argument the author is presenting is about affluent people, who he assumes have access to the global community, and that they should help the less fortunate within

Singer informs his audience of the plight of children overseas who are dying from hunger and preventable diseases. Singer argues that if everyone donated $200 to overseas aid organizations, it could help save impoverished children. After initially compelling people to want to give $200 for children who are experiencing hunger Singer then starts demanding more money from his audience. Singer states that Americans should forego luxuries so that they can donate generously to overseas aid organizations. Singer provides two examples to emphasize his point.

Neglecting the human’s free will, giving short-term solution, and being away from the reality are three main factors that will make singer’s solution unsuccessful. Viewing the issue from a moral side will make it fails. When he mentions that by not donating our extra money we are being immoral, Singer is deciding the standard for being moral which many people will see in different ways. God has created us with a free will, and without it nothing is meaningful.

In Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, he describes how he believes everyone’s approach to global poverty should be. He starts by describing how people in many places in the world are dying from hunger, having no shelter or access to medical care. Other people have the ability to stop this from happening if they make the right decisions. He compares Britain’s use of money, using three times more for certain projects than they’ve used to give to the needy, which he says shows they care more about these projects than those lives. He then says that he’s going to argue why this is wrong, and how affluent countries should be using their money and why. First he says that dying from starvation or lack of food is bad, a premise we should all accept for one reason or another. His next point is that if we have the power to prevent something bad without sacrificing something of equal or greater value, then we have the moral obligation to do it. He compares this to a child drowning in a pond, you have the obligation to go and pull the child out of the pond and help them, your clothes will get wet and dirty, but this is insignificant compared to the child’s death. He then

“About 29,000 children under the age of five – 21 each minute – die every day, mainly from preventable causes.” (http://www.unicef.org/mdg/childmortality.html) This means in the time it took you to read that first sentence, 2 children under the age of 5 died –likely from an avoidable cause. It shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that most of these deaths occur in developing countries; however, if we value all life as equal, shouldn’t this be more unsettling? In the article “What Billionaires Should Give & What You Should Give,” the Peter Singer examines several ideas surrounding the topic of philanthropy. The author agrees that we have a natural instinct and general responsibility to help those in need; however, there is much controversy over how that looks for billionaires and the average American.

Peter Singer the author of the story "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" which talks about how humans are selfish and spend their extra money on luxuries instead of donating it to charities to help starving children. Singer rambles back and forth how greedy we are and tries to make us feel guilty for those innocent starving children. Children that we suddenly have to care about just because they're almost dead "Children" are the ones to care about in this situation instead of spending our money on whatever we want we have to spend it on children you might as well have children of your own if you're doing that. In a way when you donate money to a charity you're just giving up your extra but like having a child your giving up extra for others Why would I give my hard-earned cash to some five-year-old across the planet when someone closer and richer could do the same and let me be so I can enjoy my wealth. I agree but I also disagree with Singer that the starving children need to be saved, but I don’t think this is the right solution to fixing the problem because it can cause more problems for everyone over a course of years.

In the Singer Solution to World Poverty Peter Singer, a utilitarian, discusses his view on world poverty and poses a solution. Singer brings attention to the lack of food and medicine in many third world countries. He believes that it is the moral responsibility of Americans to help end world poverty. In order to do this he says that Americans should give up their luxuries and give most of their income which isn’t used on necessities, to aid those in need. However, he only focuses on hypothetical examples that may not apply to everyday life and fails to realize that it is not the duty of the average American to save the world.

Singer's solution may have good intentions, but the plan is not plausible because there is no real way to implement it. Poverty and sickness is everywhere, and we should try to help in any way we can. However, taking the money that people worked hard for and having them give it away to people they’ve never met seems like the rock that will cause the rockslide. First, people are selfish, and many will not be willing to give up their luxuries just to give it away to others. Men and women work hard for the things they want. It’ll be hard to change people to give instead of wanting to get. Second, the nation's economy depends on the extra money people make. American consumers make up the majority of economic force in this country. If Americans

In the article Rich and Poor, Peter Singer sees extreme poverty as “not having enough income to meet the most basic human needs for adequate food, water, shelter, clothing, sanitation, health care or education” (pg. 234). Singer does not fail to compare those in extreme poverty to people who are living in absolute affluence. He suggests that it is the responsibility of those living in affluence to help those who are in need of obtaining even the basic human needs. He also argues that the affluent not helping is the moral equivalency of murder. Singer realizes that even though the rich can give to the poor these resources that they need, the rich do not feel enough of a moral mandate to do so. I disagree a bit with Singer because he seems to suggest that everyone who has the basic necessities is morally obligated to give but, I believe that this idea of a moral mandate to give should only apply to the extremely wealthy. Like Singer’s first premises says “If we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable significance, we ought to do it.” (243) If the absolute affluent have large amounts of money, they can help to at least make people live comfortably without losing anything of great significance. The increasing poverty rates, not just in America but, globally cannot be solved if the extremely wealthy continue to do wasteful spending and choose to not put their money more towards programs and charities that better the lives of the people in their

If Singer’s solution to world poverty is to donate the money that is not used for necessities, how would somebody decide how much to save for emergencies? The cost of medical emergencies is already high enough and causes people to lose so much money, even needing money donated to them to survive sometimes. If the people that used the money for that medical situation on charity instead of saving it, it could have caused the death of another human. If somebody’s house burned down, they would need money to help in an emergency like that, but if they didn’t save the extra money, they would need money donated to them. Who would decide how much money should be saved for an emergency? If money isn’t saved for emergencies, then it could be counter productive toward the safety of families within your community.