Permeability Of Group Boundaries Essay

     In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer is trying to argue that “the way people in relatively affluent countries react to a situation… cannot be justified; indeed,… our moral conceptual scheme needs to be altered and with it, the way of life that has come to be taken for granted in our society”(Singer 230). Peter Singer provides striking examples to show the reader how realistic his arguments are. In this paper, I will briefly give a summary of Peter Singer’s argument and the assumptions that follow, adding personal opinions for or against Peter’s statements. I hope that within this paper, I am able to be clearly show you my thoughts in regards to Singer.

Picture living in a community where every minute of every day you were hungry, under-clothed, and afraid death because you are poor. A world in which child dies of hunger every 5 seconds. Now imagine waking up and your biggest problem was which sweater to wear with which jeans. Even though this seems hard to imagine, this life of poverty has been a reality for most people for ages. Before the1900s, few wealthy people would ever think about poverty. Two prominent authors were Garrett Hardin and Peter Singer, who wrote essays about human poverty. They questioned whether to confront the issue of poverty or to ignore it. The first essay is "Life Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor" from the

Writer Gregory Mantsios in his article “Class in America”, talks about these things, and how wide the gap is between the rich and the poor and also discusses how the rich continue to get richer, while the poor continue to get poorer. Mantsios gives his readers the profiles and backgrounds of three hard-working Americans, two of them are white males, whose family background as well as education played a role in their success, while the other person is a black woman who is just above the poverty line despite her work as a nurse’s aide. Through these profiles, Mantsios article shows exactly how sex, race and shows how your parental and educational background of a person can play a role in the things that you achieve. Mantsios also talks about one’s performance in school and the level of school completed can suggest whether or not class that person may belong in.

The author published this collection of essays in 2004, when he was approximately at the developed age of 47 years old. The essay can be seen as a nostalgic reflection back to his past, to one of the many worthwhile, valuable, and subtle lessons taught to him by his mother. The author perhaps wrote this specific essay to act as a catalyst for the audience to realize the larger injustices that happen to people around the world like the level of severity in poverty that exists in both undeveloped countries around the world and the ignored corners of our own backyards as a result of the greed and imperialism of capitalist nations and their consumerist ideals. The publishing of this book roughly coincides with the opening of hostilities when the United States invaded Iraq in 2003.

The author is able to draw his audience in emotionally by speaking of such countries, and how it eventually ties in to the United States, stating that “(if) a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich,” (3) concluding the connection between the U.S. and those countries who have a lower living standard.

This paper explores Peter Singer’s argument, in Famine, Affluence, and Morality, that we have morally required obligations to those in need. The explanation of his argument and conclusion, if accepted, would dictate changes to our lifestyle as well as our conceptions of duty and charity, and would be particularly demanding of the affluent. In response to the central case presented by Singer, John Kekes offers his version, which he labels the and points out some objections. Revisions of the principle provide some response to the objections, but raise additional problems. Yet, in the end, the revisions provide support for Singer’s basic argument that, in some way, we ought to help those in need.

They come to realize that a system of welfare that makes no moral judgments in allocating economic rewards promotes antisocial egotism. The spiritual impoverishment of the population seems to them worse than anything they have ever known in their own countries. And what they see is all the worse, of course, because it should be so much better. The wealth that enables everyone effortlessly to have enough food should be liberating, not imprisoning. Instead, it has created a large caste of people for whom life is, in effect, a limbo in which they have nothing to hope for and nothing to fear, nothing to gain and nothing to lose. It is a life emptied of meaning (Dalrymple, 6).

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.

In this paper I will defend John Arthur’s argument of entitlement and desert against Peter Singer’s theory of our duty to the global poor. We as privileged citizens, living in a prosperous country, do have some responsibility to help the tens of thousands of children under the age of 5 who die everyday from starvation and treatable disease. It seems natural that we as citizens of a first world country have a duty to help the global poor through charity. However that “duty” is vague and is under heavy moral debate. We as privileged citizens, living in a prosperous country, do have some responsibility to help the global poor. However, this rightful duty should not necessarily live up to the extreme and overwhelming expectations of Peter Singer. John Arthur’s argument of entitlement and desert is more realistic, logical, and more applicable to the world we live in today.

might the resulting contrasts suggest about the role of class in shaping social experience in The

USA is a very big country with a lot of people and the social classes are very important. We can see that social class plays big part of people’s life. Everyday people are working, studying, trying to be better. Even though right now it’s time when everyone has many opportunities in his life, anyway there is a gap between classes and groups of people with same features. And your background probably will build your future. And we need to find what kind of class we have right now and look into these classes. The main idea is that Social Classes still exist and it’s most general part of U.S.A society. There are three reasons why gap between groups still exist.

class, or the Outer Party, are trying to become part of the higher class. While the poor, or

Garrett Hardin’s excerpt from “Lifeboat Ethics” first appeared in Psychology Today in September 1974. In this essay, there is a metaphor that rich and poor are very different. I strongly disagree with Hardin’s metaphor even though he is truthful about his beliefs. The metaphor is only being seen in one point of view, when there are multiple ways of looking at it.

They are rich, I am poor,’ is very emotive, he is trying to gain sympathy in order to strengthen his persuasion, which is successful. Again, in his conversation with

In Wealth of Nations, self-interest seems to be synonymous with selfishness, and be the driving force of capitalism and the necessary ingredient for personal and economic wealth. This is, however, and partial and superficial view. Although in Wealth of Nations Smith does declare that human’s primary motive for most actions is self-love, all of their actions are still made within the moral parameters of society, which were created because of sympathy. A man, for example, will not pursue his self-interest at any cost to the people around him. He has to be ethical and fair in his interactions in order to be seen as morally and socially acceptable. In this way an understanding of, and cooperation with the sympathetic nature of society proves to further one’s self-interests. Therefore, to act morally and sympathetically is in fact an act out of self-interest.