Peter Singer Helping The Poor Analysis

It should be obvious that this is a dubious metaphor. To begin with (and this will come up again) not all countries are either rich or poor. Furthermore, it is not as clear as Hardin assumes that we lack the resources to save everyone. And the argument from the safety factor may seem dubious. Couldn't we help some people -- even if we select them in a fairly arbitrary way?

Both Hardin and Benjamin make great points about wealthy nations and poor nations receiving and giving aid. We live on the same planet, and use the same resources, if only it was as easy to give resources as it is to use them.

At first Hardin’s ethics seem rude and selfish, but as you continue reading he makes it clear this may be the only way to save our world and have it become a better place. For instance, "on the average poor countries undergo a 2.5 percent increase in population each year; rich countries, about 0.8 percent. If the poor countries received no food from the out side, the rate of their population growth […]" (Hardin 4). Hardin continues his piece explaining why rich countries should not help poorer countries that are in need. He believes a poor country that needs support needs to learn the hard way, even if that means losing resources or people. His words like "rich countries", "no food" shows the use of a metaphor that Hardin is able to paint a visual illustration of his argument to his audience. This helps influence and persuade his readers because they are able to grasp the whole concept of Hardin’s argument. Hardin also spoke in his essay using the repetition of the words "we" and "us" is a language factor that persuades the audience to accept Hardin’s ideas because it implicates that he and his audience is of equal status. Here, the ethics he reveals in his essay have good reasoning. Helping someone in need has always been a moral in someone’s life. But now, Hardin proposes a new ethic, "lifeboat ethics". Singer, on the other hand, often refers to the fact that nearly one-third of Americans spend their income on luxuries that they “desire” instead of donating the

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,

“That persons with very low incomes may merit our sympathy is accepted, but sympathy leads to charity, rather than to the involuntary exploitation of the better off” (Narveson, 2004). Singer also says that people with a maintainable amount of wealth should give more than the X amount asked for, being that the predicament that some are not able to give or they can give less than the amount asked for. “Another, more serious reason for not giving to famine relief funds is that until there is effective population control, relieving famine merely postpone starvation” (Singer, 1972).

Also the poor countries population is growing faster than the rich countries. Hardin want to go ahead and get rid of the poor countries. So the poor countries would not be using up the earth’s limited resources. Hardin has not sympathy to the poor and lesser countries. Swift writes “A Modest Proposal” to the people that would not agree with his argument.

As a human, I felt obligated to be supportive and help those who need it, if it doesn’t take much to help that person or their benefits aren’t detrimental to me. But after reading On the Supposed Obligation to Relieve Famine, I realized that I should re-evaluate the situation and determine if the individual deserves the assistance. Although I will not settle completely on one side or the other, I have reconsidered my viewpoints, in terms of should I be compelled to help if the person is a good candidate for the assistance. Singer has exposed me to the idea of taking more action in helping those in need, while Kekes has directly convinced me to analyze the situation, the background, the reason for help, and determine if my efforts will be

In “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Peter Singer argues that Americans are extremely materialistic people. People have the tendency to feel the need to go out and upgrade to the newest clothes or electronics. Even though there is nothing wrong with the possessions that they have now. Specifically, he points out somebody that goes out and buys a new very expensive suit. He suggests that instead of going out and buying that new fancy suit why not donate to relief programs that will help save children’s lives. Singer states that it would only take two hundred dollars to save a child’s life. Singer suggests that instead of spending that thousand dollars on a new fancy suit why not donate it to one of the relief programs? Just in case that is not enough proof that people are very materialistic, Singer gives the example of Bob and his Bugatti on the train tracks. As you read you learn Bob had the option between letting a train kill a small child or crushing Bob’s Bugatti (380). Bob makes the decision to let the train hit the child because he had put too much money into his Bugatti. To Bob the Bugatti was his financial security for when he decided to retire and that is why he let the train hit the small child. And that is what Peter Singer is getting at when he says that American are too caught up about all of the new shiny things that they need to have. Peter also proposes that Americans have the “follow-the-crowd ethics” (382). While he is comparing Americans who are not

In his essay, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Peter Singer talks about the need to help other countries who are suffering. He says “As I write this, in November 1971, people are dying in East Bengal from lack of food, shelter, and medical care.” Singer was making the point that while richer countries are spending money on pointless things, people in poorer countries are dying. In Garrett Hardin’s, Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor, he talks about who should be saved first, the rich or the poor?

At any given moment, there are people around the world suffering and dying due to severe poverty. According to Peter Singer, there is much more that we can do to help create a better life for these people. He makes the obvious statement, in which most people agree with, that suffering and death due to poverty are very bad. His second idea is that if we are able to prevent that from happening without sacrificing too much for ourselves, we should. Essentially, we should prevent a bad thing from happening if it is in our power to do so without causing harm to ourselves in any way. An example of this that Singer points out is, “if I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought to wade in and pull the child out. This will mean getting my clothes muddy, but this is insignificant, while

Peter Singer is a utilitarian philosopher from Melbourne, Australia. He holds the Chair of Ethics at Princeton University and professor at Charles Sturt University in Melbourne, Australia. His goal is to show that rights are based in the capacity for suffering.

However, not all the Hardin’s points are wrong; he makes a good point by saying that we need to teach poor nations to provide aid for themselves and do not depend on others.

Every day around the world, countless numbers of children living in poverty die from diseases that we already have vaccinations to prevent and eliminate; they are only provided to certain people. Why is this? Is one human life worth saving and another not? In “What Should a Billionaire Give – and What Should You?”, an article by professor and moral philosopher Peter Singer, he says that “all humans are created equal” and that “our obligation to the poor is not just one of providing assistance to strangers but one of compensation for harms that we have caused and are still causing them”. He argues the opulent person should have a strong moral obligation to pledge money to the needy. Although I have the utmost respect Singer’s essay and do find

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.

     Imagine living in a community where every minute of everyday you were hungry, underclothed, and at risk for death because you are poor. Now imagine waking up and your biggest problem was which sweater to wear with which jeans. Both are scenarios that occur on a daily basis in our countries, some more extreme than others are. With that in mind a question of whether or not rich nations have an obligation to help those nations if need arises. Professor of philosophy Peter Singer and biologist Garrett Hardin both have very different opinions on this matter and the following paper will focus on their arguments.