Peter Singer 'A Hypothetical Story Of A Drowninging Child'

Peter's Lullaby, is the most disturbing true story I believe I have ever picked up and read, and such child abuse and heartache and pain of a child's memory of abuse that is clearly unimaginable. I thought I understand what child abuse is, but reading this book in detail, it's not only what I have heard or seen in the news or in new paper articles of a child being shaken to death which is ungodly in itself. The abuse the author, Jeanne Fowler and siblings, went through daily, including seeing her little brother slowly murdered by her parents is beyond understanding. Her mother didn’t hang pictures on the wall, in her abuse of her children she hung them on walls, in closets and bathrooms, for days at a time without food or clothes. It was her brother, Peter's lullaby hushed Jeanne, which he would sing after a beating to comforted her and himself, to allow them to sleep. Jeanne would listen

He also presents the question would someone feel more obligated to save the drowning child if more people were around yet no one was doing anything? He compares this analogy to the view that “numbers lessen obligation”, which he thinks is absurd. To further with this view, Singer says “The view that numbers do make a difference can be made plausible if stated in this way: if everyone in circumstances like mine gave £5 to the Bengal Relief Fund, there would be enough to provide food, shelter, and medical care for the refugees; there is no reason why I should give more than anyone else in the same circumstances as I am; therefore I have no obligation to give more than £5 (Famine, Affluence and Morality)”. This is his way of saying, if you want to make it that numbers do in fact make a difference, what’s your response to if we all just donate a little bit of money? He almost makes fun of the idea that people would use that as a reason not to help someone out who needs it more than we do. He says “ and everyone else in similar circumstances ought to give as much as possible, that is, at least up to the point at which by giving more one would begin to cause serious suffering for oneself and one's dependents (Famine, Affluence, and Morality)”.

Peter Singer's persuasive essay strips us bare of our selfish wants as he equates our tendency to accumulate all the stuff we don’t need with ignoring the plight of drowning children and, as such, being responsible for the death of those children. We are, Singer convincingly argues, products of our fortunate “social capital”; therefore, we have an obligation to those who do not have a social capital.

From a close look at the current situation in the world - globalization is drawing more and more countries, and on the other hand, more and more are getting further from each other in terms of life level. In the story "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" Ursula LeGuin reminds her readers that walking away from a problem is not a solution of it. Omelas’ well-being in some supernatural way is associated with the life of one child, who is caring a lonely existence in a dark basement. However, citizens of this city did not dare to change lives or try to come to the child with a gentle word. Otherwise, the happiness for the whole city would be over. At the same time, all the people of the city knew this child. The author raises many humanitarian questions that will influence the civilization’s future survival: will people do something about a problem or keep walking away and enjoy their happiness for someone’s suffering?

In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer claims that “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.” Additionally, Singer believes that distance is no excuse for allowing something bad to happen; thus, we ought to help people on the other side of the world the same way we would help a neighbor – even though we may feel further inclined to help our neighbors. Moreover, Singer states that people should help as much as possible, without putting themselves or their dependents at risk of suffering. Peter Singer is correct in stating that people with the capacity to prevent something bad from occurring should do so; however,

While the classic consequentialist and the Bodhisattva concept are very different, they promote almost the same ideology with the exception that the Bodhisattva demands self-sacrifice. In terms of the duty to prevent/eliminate bad things (suffering) and do it in a way that seeks to maximize good and extend efforts to all, such situations are extremely demanding of the moral doer. Neither view commits to any notion of empathy, but relies on rationalizing, sacrificing, and orienting towards results.

The issue is, in-between the bank and your location, there is hundreds of ponds with a drowning child in each and you must decide whether you should go stop your money from being stolen or save the kids. This is a completely impractical situation, to Singer’s point, but there is no moral equivalent to starvation and it is an issue of its own. Timmerman’s essay does its job in responding to Singers hypothetical situation and properly debunks it.

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

So, why is that? John Darley and Bibb Latane explain exactly why people just walk by without helping in their essay titled, “Why People Don’t Help in a Crisis.” Darley and Latane describe what feelings people have when they pass a

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.

Peter Singer said; “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it” (Famine, Affluence, and Morality). As human beings, we have a moral compulsion to help other people, despite the verity that they may be strangers, especially when whatever type of aid we may render can in no approach have a more significant consequence on our own life.

Childhood drowning is the leading cause of death from unintentional injury. It has also been reported that in US, childhood drowning is the second leading cause of death among 1-19 years of children and adolescents (Brenner et.al, 2001).