Extended Essay Draft

We have the capabilities to decrease this suffering and pain nevertheless, we disregard the problem and do nothing at all, which can be immoral. We should modify our opinions of morality so as to develop a dedication to helping people in terrible need.

Everyone can feel, just like you and I, but there's one important question that lingers through the air. Should we really be accepting of other people?

The Water Pollution Gizmo™ will teach you about some of the main kinds of water pollution. On the TYPE tab, under Types of pollution, check

Empathy is the ability to understand and experience the feelings of others, particularly others’ suffering. Humanity’s gift of understanding complex emotions ushers in a new way of understanding ourselves and how we react to stimuli. This ultimately leads to questioning of everything, leading us to one strong notion: Does empathy guide or hinder moral action?

We were engendered to live and interact with others because that’s what makes our lives consequential. In our world, there are many perpetual malefactions of human suffering that cadge for people’s attention. Surprisingly, not many of us avail others in any way, shape, or form and that might be due to different factors that circumvent us. Sundry authors distributed their opinion through articles and documentaries about the causes and effects of human suffering. During times of distress and suffering, people often times react in an unresponsive and careless manner which results in reinforcing the enemy, and perpetrators of iniquity.

My interest for the Attorney Advisor position with the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) arises from my longstanding commitment to constantly improve myself. I have always enjoyed legal research, writing, and the complexities of intellectual property. I have no doubt that my enthusiasm to research, my eagerness to learn, and my strong ability to communicate clearly, work efficiently, accurately, and quickly, will make me an invaluable asset to the USPTO. I believe these traits combined with my unique skillset, developed as a result of experiences working for the Arizona Diamondbacks of Major League Baseball (Diamondbacks), Nike Inc. (Nike), and the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Liability Management Department (AG Office)

Poverty is a result of absence of basic needs; food, shelter and medical care. If we are in a position to help an individual who is suffering, without sacrificing anything of moral importance we should help the individual. Singer used the child drowning on shallow pond story to illustrate his viewpoint. Many individuals have criticized the simplistic nature of the example and it’s discussed towards the end of the paper.

Peter Singer’s central idea focuses around how grim death and suffering from lack of food, shelter and medical care really is. He further argues that if we can prevent something this unfortunate from happening, without sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought to do it. In other words, as privileged citizens, we ought to prevent all of the death and suffering that we can from lack of food, shelter and medical care from happening by giving our money and resources to charity (Chao, 2016, in-class discussion). In the terms of this argument, death and suffering from poverty are preventable with the

In his article Rich and Poor, Peter Singer argues that we have a moral obligation to give assistance to people in absolute poverty. He derived this conclusion from three premises. The first states that if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we ought to it. The second premise is that absolute poverty is a bad thing. The third premise is that we are able to alleviate some portion of absolute poverty without giving up anything of comparable moral significance. To illustrate the urgency of our duty to assist the poor, he believes that in a case where we happen to walk pass a child drowning in a shallow pond, the vast majority of people would agree that it would be seriously morally wrong to not rescue the child. Connecting this scenario to Singer’s argument, we can say it is seriously morally wrong to not assist the poor because the lives of these people in need are of greater moral importance than the excess income we would otherwise spend on luxury goods. Thus, Singer is correct in saying that we have a moral obligation to assist the poor, and that failing to do so is equally as morally wrong as failing to rescue the drowning child.

Singer provides the statistical data to strengthen his argument and claims that one third of annual income of the Americans is spent on unnecessities (Singer, “The Singer Solution” 1). In Unger's research, Singer found out that $200 could save one child's life ( Singer, “The Singer Solution” 2). What is $200 for us compared with the children’s lives? It is nothing. The author emphasizes that we spend the same amount of money when we dine out at an expensive restaurant. Instead of going to restaurant, we could do something better with our money and save a child. But there are a lot of suffering children all over the world, who also deserve to live. The author, furthermore, encourages people does not stop at $200 and to donate all excess money from their income: “the formula is simple: whatever money you're spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away” (Singer, “The Singer Solution” 4). He provides direct phone numbers of such organizations as UNICEF, Oxfam America that engaged in helping the needy people, thereby showing us that we have all possibilities and information to alleviate needless suffering (Singer, “The Singer Solution” 2). Thus, Peter invokes readers to give up going to restaurants, as well as to give up buying other luxuries so that one child’s life will be saved. He concludes that if we do not sacrifice our

Singer’s arguments rest on the simple assumption that suffering, from lack of basic resources, is bad. Accordingly, his argument is that the way people in prosperous countries respond to situations like that in Bengal is not morally justified. His argument is that if we have the power to prevent bad situations from occurring, “without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance,” (Singer, 231) then we have a moral obligation to do so. In order to get people to give the appropriate amount of money Singer insinuates that the social distinction between duty and charity must be reconsidered. Moreover, charity should no longer be seen as a supererogatory act, or rather an act that is socially perceived as virtuous but has no social consequences if ignored. Thus, his

In "The Singer Solution to World Poverty," Peter Singer focuses on world poverty and what we could do to help, such as donating money to overseas aid (third countries). However, the main proposition Singer lays out is through different scenarios, that begin to question peoples’ morals and the way they view things. An example Singer uses is a man named Bob who refused to sacrifice his Bugatti (dream Car) and save the life of a child. However, the Bugatti was not only his dream car but also more like his life savings. Singer states, “Bob’s conduct, most of us will immediately respond, was gravely wrong. Unger agrees. But then he reminds us that we, too, have opportunities to save the lives of children…If you still think that it was very wrong

According to the United Nations, a child dies of hunger every ten seconds. Likewise, millions of people worldwide live in poverty and do not know when they will eat again. While the typical American throws away leftover food, children are dying across the world from starvation. To put this into perspective: By the time you have started reading, a child has died of hunger. Bioethicist and utilitarian philosopher, Peter Singer, in his argumentative essay, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” asserts that it is the individual's responsibility to save children in poverty. Singer utilizes many rhetorical strategies-- including appealing to pathos, repetition, and comparison of statistics-- to defend his argument: “Whatever money you’re spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away.” He adopts an analytical and indignant tone in order to convince Americans to donate money to save the lives of millions of children.

A drowning child. Peter Singer tells a hypothetical story of a drowning child in his lectures and writings. The story ends in the question of what would you do? You are walking around a pond or body of water and see a child struggling to stay above water. A bystander may be hollering for help. You are wearing new, expensive clothing. If you stop to help the drowning child you will wreck your new clothes. If you don’t stop and help the child could drown. What do you do? He uses this scenario to compare to starving children in other countries and how our duty to help them is the same. He uses “out of sight, out of mind” to describe what a lot of peoples’ thoughts are when it comes to helping others and feels that distance shouldn’t change whether or not we help someone.

Most definitions of empathy are based on the same core idea - empathy is the ability to understand and identify someone else’s thoughts and feelings, as if they were one’s own (wordreference online dictionary, 2016). Although it’s been said “there are probably nearly as many definitions of empathy as people working on the topic.” (de Vignemont & Singer, 2006, p.435) suggesting that there is no singular way to even define empathy, let alone explain its impact on our behaviour. Due to the sheer depth and complexity of empathy it’s understandable that each discipline within psychology presents it’s own explanation for why we experience it, and how it can affect our interaction with the world around us. Psychologists have been exploring empathy for decades, in hope of gaining a complete grasp of what it means and how it can vary between each person, therefore its important we look at different psychological perspectives to try to understand it’s many dimensions.