Peter Singer Solution

Peter Singer defends that we “ought to prevent evil whenever we can do so without sacrificing something of comparable moral significance (Famine Relief and the Ideal Moral Code pg. 813)”. He believes that we should donate at least half of our earnings to people in absolute poverty, which in this case means poverty by any standard. He also says we should help out people in other countries before we help out our own neighbor. “The fact that a person is physically near to us, so that we have

In conclusion, although Singer does have a good meaning behind his essay, he fails to persuade his audience by being too demanding.

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

Peter Singer’s argument over the immoral spending of the average American is presented in his piece “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” through two analogies. He compares both situations against each other, as well as to the real life situation of most Americans. His first analogy involves a woman named Dora who delivers a boy for $1000 and then uses said money to purchase a nice TV. However the boy’s life is put in jeopardy and she is compelled to rescue the boy. Singer introduces the idea that she could’ve spent that money on herself in many extravagant ways, and states that many Americans do this already. He addresses that Dora is in fact unlike most Americans in that most Americans do not directly cause the misfortune

In “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” by Peter Singer, Singer uses analogies and propaganda to defend his solution for world poverty. In the article, Singer parallels a story of a man choosing to save a car over saving a child with modern Americans choosing luxuries over donating money to save underprivileged children. He provides resources of organizations to help these children, and he continuously describes the problems with both materialism in American society and children who are dying preventable deaths. Singer’s solution is that individuals should simply give away any money that is not absolutely essential for basic necessities.

We all heard countless solutions on how to solve world poverty. In Peter Singer’s article “Rich and Poor”, he discusses how he thinks this problem can be fixed. Singer claims that we all have a responsibility to support people who are in extreme need and are suffering from absolute poverty. Singer believes that poverty could be fixed if people give up their luxuries and give the money that they spent on unnecessary things to those who are destitute. In Singer 's mind, we all have a duty to give until we are no longer able to, or until the problem with the world poverty will be solved. Singer feels that it is necessary for people who are more wealthy to help those who are less fortunate by donating money right away to organizations that help fight poverty. In his opinion, by not helping those in need we are negatively responsible for their suffering and thus failing to live a moral life.

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

The writer behind “Singers Solution to World Poverty” advocates that U.S. citizens give away the majority of their dispensable income in order to end global suffering. Peter Singer makes numerous assumptions within his proposal about world poverty, and they are founded on the principle that Americans spend too much money on items and services that they do not need.

The second policy that is ‘takin care of our own’ proposes a preference that is grounded on emotional, social and geographical closeness. I earlier suggested that Singer’s opinions are reflexivity, tractability and approachability. He does so by attracting attention to matters and making claims such as "If, then, allowing someone to die is not intrinsically different from killing someone, it would seem that we are all murderers" (2011: 194). Despite his conclusion that failing to save a life is not the moral equivalent. The reader is provoked into reflecting on their own sense of morality, especially powerful against intuitive objections. On the other hand, his conclusions are backed by realistic assumptions of consequences, which exemplify

Singer in his book “The Life You Can Save” wrote that : “…when we spend our surplus on concerts or fashionable shoes, on fine dining and good wines, or on holidays in faraway lands, we are doing something wrong” (Singer, “The Life You Can Save” 18). He means that if we are spending our surplus on ourselves, on our pleasure and happiness, for us these luxuries are worth more than a child's life. Singer tries to persuade people that they should give up extra money that they have in order to help other people. He demands people to put interests of others before their own. His argument is too extreme, because it is an unrealistic that people will sacrifice their all luxuries, to which they are accustomed, to help to a

Peter Singer, a prominent moral philosopher and public intellectual, has written at length about many ethical issues. He subscribes to utilitarianism, which is the position that the best moral action is that which maximizes the well-being of conscious entities; this view is made apparent through his writings. In his essay What Should a Billionaire Give—and What Should You? Singer presents the idea that although the rich are capable of mitigating extreme poverty, there has been little improvement for the poorest 10 percent of the world’s population. He maintains that all life is equal and, therefore, saving the lives of the poor is a moral imperative for those who can afford to. “We are far from acting in accordance to that belief,”

In the article Rich and Poor, Peter Singer sees extreme poverty as “not having enough income to meet the most basic human needs for adequate food, water, shelter, clothing, sanitation, health care or education” (pg. 234). Singer does not fail to compare those in extreme poverty to people who are living in absolute affluence. He suggests that it is the responsibility of those living in affluence to help those who are in need of obtaining even the basic human needs. He also argues that the affluent not helping is the moral equivalency of murder. Singer realizes that even though the rich can give to the poor these resources that they need, the rich do not feel enough of a moral mandate to do so. I disagree a bit with Singer because he seems to suggest that everyone who has the basic necessities is morally obligated to give but, I believe that this idea of a moral mandate to give should only apply to the extremely wealthy. Like Singer’s first premises says “If we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable significance, we ought to do it.” (243) If the absolute affluent have large amounts of money, they can help to at least make people live comfortably without losing anything of great significance. The increasing poverty rates, not just in America but, globally cannot be solved if the extremely wealthy continue to do wasteful spending and choose to not put their money more towards programs and charities that better the lives of the people in their

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.

Addressed in his essay “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, Peter Singer’s full assertion is that, it is morally wrong for people to spend money on morally insignificant things instead of spending money to prevent suffering and dying from preventable diseases and famine. He begins his argument with the first premise: “suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad.”(231) Such premise is direct, simple, accepted by most people in the society. Peter Singer hence take such assumption as accepted by the readers and quickly moves to his next premise.

Specifically, Singer questions why poverty exists when people are so willing to spend their money on expensive items such as clothes. He says people claim they are always willing to save a child, even if it meant their expensive shoes and clothes would become dirty. However, Singer argues they do not consider that the money spent on their clothes could have saved numerous lives if they had donated to a charity. Singer points out the prevalent conflict in society: people are willing to spend their money on expensive shoes and cars but do not think to donate to charities that would help hundreds of people. He argues poverty is a universal issue that could be solved if more people were willing to spend their money on helping others in need. When Singer reveals the hypocrisy of most people regarding spending money, he proves poverty is a widespread problem that must be solved since it affects so many people around the