Morality of Giving Essays

In Peter Singer’s 1972 post titled “Famine, Affluence and Morality”, he conveys that wealthy nations, for example the United States, has an ethical duty to contribute much a lot more than we do with regards to worldwide assistance for famine relief and/or other disasters or calamities which may happen. In this document, I will describe Singers objective in his work and give his argument with regards to this problem. I will describe 3 counter-arguments to Singer’s view which he tackles, and after that reveal Singer’s reactions to those counter-arguments. I will explain Singer’s idea of marginal

In a piece by Peter Singer entitled, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Singer argues that Americans should prevent atrocious situations to arise but, we also should not sacrifice something of equal importance while doing so. Moreover, in the piece by John Arthur, “World Hunger and Moral Obligation: The Case Against Singer,” Arthur disagrees with Singer; he believes that we should help the poverty-stricken but, it is not morally imperative to do so.

Singer’s argument to world famine is giving charity is neither charitable nor generosity, but it’s an obligation to give money out and if you don’t, then it’s morally wrong. He states we as individuals have a duty to help reduce poverty and death because of starvation. Singer argues, suffering and death due to the lack of food, is terrible. Hence we have the power to help those group of people. By that, people can cut down the famine and suffering by giving famine relief and in doing so, we as individuals have to give a certain amount of money from our standard of living. This fails to recognize people’s own intrinsic moral values because Singer says we must always make the morally best decision.

He believes that the poor cannot be simply given things, for if a man is given fish, they are fed for a day, but if that man is taught how to fish, they will be fed for a lifetime. The only way for the poor to become productive members of society is to provide them the chance to succeed.

The next premise relates to our individual obligation to give and is derived from the following: Given the equal obligation noted above, everyone should give his or her fair share. If everyone donates appropriately to famine relief in Africa, I would have no reason to give more than my fair share. But, in reality, this is not the case, so I must give more than my fair share to meet my obligation and I ought to give as much a possible up to the point of negative personal consequences to save as many lives as I can. This provides a foundation for premise three (P3) -

In the first premise, Singer made it seem as if the people doing well are responsible for providing benefits like food, shelter, and medical care. I believe that is the unfortunate’s responsibility to apply for government assistant to get access to these benefits. The government will offer the unfortunate help but they just have to take that first step. Singer had a valid point in his second premise, “it is not wrong to stop something bad from happening if it’s in your power.” That raises the question, but to what extent? Singer mentions “without sacrificing anything nearly as important”, but how do his readers measure importance? He does not give a clear enough stance in his second premise. Singer’s third premise is the explanation of his conclusion. In this premise and conclusion, I think that he wants his readers to feel bad for not donating to aid agencies. It is impractical in general to shame someone for not wanting to give. He argues that people should donate to aid agencies but he never explains to his readers how much they should give. Singer also does not tell his readers when should they give, should they give in general or during a crisis? Is there also a limit to giving? Some people doing well do want to aid the unfortunate but they don’t want them to become so dependent on their

In Peter Singer’s essay “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, published on September 5th, 1999 in The New York Times Magazine, Singer claims that the solution to world poverty is for Americans to donate excess income to aid organizations. His article consists of a gathering of exaggerated situations which he uses to engage readers, while also adequately supporting an argument of moral duty by comparing the hypothetical scenarios to Americans who do not donate. Singer exhibits an appeal to pathos to a substantial amount throughout his article. The provided situations set an outline for the reader to feel certain, appealing emotions.

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 in his essay “The Solution to World Poverty” provides a solution for solving the issue of poverty by donating all excess money for the needs of poor people. He urges readers that everyone, who have sufficient household income, is required to give away all their unnecessary money to overseas aid organizations. Moreover, he argues that if people fail to do so, they are living unworthy immoral lives (5). In this paper I will argue that by giving extreme examples and information of aid agencies Singer makes us feel forced in donation of excess money, whereas this action should be voluntary and it should not be considered if we are not willing to give away all excess

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

Peter Singer is often regarded as one of the most productive and influential philosophers of modern times. He is well-known for his discussions of the acute social, economic, and political issues, including poverty and famines. In his “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, Singer (1972) discusses the problem of poverty and hunger, as well as the way this problem is treated in the developed world. Singer believes that charity is inseparable from morality, and no distinction can be drawn between charity and duty. The philosopher offers possible objections to his proposition and relevant arguments to justify his viewpoint. The modern world does not support Singer’s view, treating charity as a voluntary activity, an act of generosity that needs

Nowadays, the process of globalization strengthens the connections between numerous countries across the world, and enables people living in developed countries to help those who are experiencing famine, deaths and diseases in poor countries. However, the moral necessity of doing so has been controversial in human’s society for years. One philosopher named Peter Singer gives his opinion in the article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, and presents a powerful argument supporting his claim. In this essay, I will explain his conclusion and main argument, propose one objection to his argument, and evaluate the validity of my objection by considering possible response that Peter Singer would make to my objection.

In this paper I will begin by explaining Singer’s utilitarian argument in “The Life You Can Save” regarding the obligation of affluent nations to give in order to alleviate global poverty. Secondly, I will analyze one objection to Singer’s argument that opposes charity. Thirdly, after examining the objection to Singer’s argument, I will present Singer’s noteworthy reply. Finally, after offering both an objection to Singer’s argument, as well as Singer’s rebuttal, I will offer my own view on whether or not Singer’s refutation is convincing.

In the “Famine, Affluence and Morality” Peter Singer argued that individuals are morally obligated to grant most of their belongings to famines. He puts his argument as following. “suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad. If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without derby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.” (Singer,454) John Arthur’s objection to this theory is that Singer’s second premise which he calls “greater moral evil principle” is not the whole picture and does not consider entitlement of individuals. He explains that Singer’s claim that great moral evil principle “explains our felling or that it appears uncontroversial” (singer, 454) is not sufficient since moral equality is also important.