Peter Singer Utilitarianism

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

the issue of poverty by suggesting Americans give away most of their income to aid those in need. Singer believes that withholding income is the equivalence of letting a child starve to death. Therefore, Singer suggests the ethical thing to do to end world hunger is to give up everyday luxuries. Although donating a vast amount of money could help dying and starving children, Singer’s proposition is not only unrealistic but also too demanding for everyday Americans who have responsibilities of their own.

In this article, Singer argues that prosperous people should give all money not used on necessities to charity. This bold argument will either persuade or disinterest someone fully. There are many pros and cons of Singer’s argument.

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.

Singer believes that we should all give to charity until we reach a point where we lose something morally equivalent to the people starving or until we are equal. To do this, because not all private individuals would, would require some sort of force. Because this would have to happen it would essentially eliminate the notion of charity. It will no longer be a generous donation of your earnings to help others, it will be a repressive act of a totalitarian regime to try and steal your property. This will lead to a chain reaction of events that I will explain further. People work hard to earn what they have and they should be able to do what they want with it. Thievery is also immoral and it would be done on a grand scale taking almost everything people have. This raises another question, is this as immoral as letting people starve? I would argue it is close because you are taking away people’s livelihoods that they worked for and are shoving them into poverty. I know that people struggling in developing nations

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 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 is an Australian philosopher who has written extensively on poverty and social issues. Peter Singer states that “giving to charity” or neither charitable nor generous; it is individuals duty and not giving would be considered wrong. In his work he presented arguments on Why is it considered our duty to give?

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

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

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, 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,”

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.

Singer offers many objections to his argument, but I will focus on the most important one: “If someone wants to buy a new car, they should. If someone wants to redecorate their house, they should, and if they need a suit, get it. They work for their money and they have the right to spend it on themselves” (26). This seems to be the most logical objection to Singer’s argument because humans are inherently selfish. They work for their money and would like to spend it any which way they desire—whether it be to charity or a car—without being chastised and degraded. Many people make enough to send their children to college, own a reliable car, and to occasionally be able to

Peter Singer, a utilitarian philosopher who specializes in applied ethics, is known either as infamous or famous depending on one’s philosophy. Singer has spoken on a multitude of sensitive topics throughout his career drawing praise and controversy. Notably you can find Singer’s position on solving world poverty in his essay “The Solution to World Poverty”. In his essay, he attempts to persuade readers to follow his thought that it is immoral not to give all your excess wealth to penurious children. To a degree, he accomplishes his objective within the first half of his essay, using two hypothetical examples that appeal to emotion. However, Singer’s case falls short of completely selling his utilitarian philosophy, due to his disconnect with the reality of human nature.