Peter Singer's Duty

Isn’t it human nature to have empathy for one another, to help out whenever one needs it? I may not be the sweetest person around but I’d like to think I would definitely help one in need, however that maybe. On the night Kitty Genovese was gruesomely murdered no one came to her rescue, not even a phone call during her cries for help. This was when John Darley and Bibb Latane, two young

I find this topic for a journal really interesting because I feel as if the whole idea of helping people without doing harm is the entire focus of this class. We discussed this point in Robert Lupton’s Toxic Charity and we are talking about it now in Tori Hogan’s Beyond Good Intentions. This idea of helping without doing harm interesting because most people probably feel like they are helping others when in reality they may be causing more harm than good. In my opinion, it is possible to help without doing harm, however, there is a fine line between help and harm that can sometimes be difficult to see.

We have all seen the commercials and have heard the statistics about poverty and world hunger. We know that there are children in third world countries that wake up every day not knowing when they are going to be able to eat anything or if they will have clean water to drink. Even knowing this information, we still do nothing about it and go on living our lives. Many people try to argue that although they know that people are starving in the world, there is nothing they can do because they are hundreds of miles away. Distance is not the problem and it is constantly being used as an excuse as to why people do not respect their moral obligation. Several people may argue that we do have a moral obligation to help others, but only to those in our own

In “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” an article from The New York Times Magazine, Peter Singer argues that poverty and disease can be reduced if prosperous people give away inessential money. Any human can acknowledge the fact that poverty and hunger are dominant concerns in society, and attempting to solve those controversies will reap benefits to those in need, while simultaneously harming those who are not; creating a cycle of solving problems only to create more.

Elizabeth, you did a good job at avoiding judging the scenario on your own personal morals and restricting your discussion to utilizing the ethical systems proposed. I believe when you stated, “We should do no harm, but do not have an obligation to help anyone, if it does not benefit ourselves, first and foremost”, it describes enlightened egoism, “a slight revision of this basic principle, adding that each person’s objective is long-term welfare” (Pollock, pp. 42, 2017). Your source clarifies the distinction made by Ann Rand by saying she “does advocate showing all people a “generalized respect and good will” which amounts to nonintervention; we should avoid arbitrarily doing harm to others, but our duties to aid them are also minimal” (Ethical

“ We are all here on earth to help others” said W.H Auden. Everybody needs help it might not be a life threatening situation, it might just be helping out with a small chore but, people still need help. Have you ever helped someone or something in need? I have, one day Mrs. Melissa called and she needed my mom’s and I help.It wasn’t a big deal it was just someone in the world needing help.

In his 2006 New York Times article “What Should a Billionaire Give – and What Should You?” moral philosopher, Peter Singer, argues why everyone, especially wealthy individuals, are morally obligated to help tackle the issue of “global poverty” (Singer 266). Singer begins the article by naming two philanthropist billionaires, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet after discovering that many people living in areas that lack access to basic health and public services suffer from high death rates. He emphasizes this by asking provocative questions about the value of human life (Singer 27).

Hardin makes a notion not to help poor countries and he did make some good points, but I stand with Peter Singer’s position on preventing the mass starvation on Kenya by helping them. Rich countries could help Kenya, but to a certain extent. Rich country can give Kenya food supplies to feed the poor, but not towards where the harm will be caused on that country. We are morally obligated to help others to a certain extent. Such as, we should always take care of ourselves first before helping anybody, because anybody could be dragged into the situation that another person might be in.

In this paper I will discuss Peter Singer’s argument that it is our duty to aid to those in need, and John Arthur’s argument that we have competitive intuitions that have precedence over our duty to aid the needy. I will then argue that Arthur’s argument is more applicable to human kind as a species, simply due to the fact that human instinct is not capable of fulfilling Singer’s premise.

On April 9 2016, I watched the TED Talk of Michele L. Sullivan, an American social innovator. She argued that it is important for people to have a support system, and to be part of a support system. Specifically, she argued that although people need “help throughout [their] lifetimes, it is just as important that [they] are part of other people’s support systems.” Sullivan stated that this is imperative since “we all go through challenges.” Furthermore, she explained that because of that, “we must adopt a new way of giving.” By talking about “giving,” Sullivan refers to the act of helping others. Some may oppose to asking for help, as it may be a sign of weakness, or maybe even feel as though others don’t need their help. Yet Sullivan argued

Peter Singer’s idea of wealthy people donating all their money to overseas organizations is a form extremism and would cause more harm to the global financial system than rid off any existing poverty. Singer’s plan comes from the right place but has many radical ways. Some of the wealthy will be reluctant to relinquish their privileged position they have become to accustomed to and the definition of luxury and necessity is different to many.

Most often, people help others when doing that good deed comes with a reward for themselves personally. One theory to support this is self-interested helping. Self-interested helping is when we aid someone else in order to benefit our own welfare in the end. An example of this is helping a teacher after class in hopes of getting on their good side and being favored on grades. However, the reward does not have to be physical. You could help someone out merely to feel better about yourself, but that is still a selfish motive. While an act of kindness does help the other party, it is often hard to tell who is getting more from it. This proves that humans help do good deeds for a personal reward, even if they don’t realize it.

The Singer Solution to World Poverty by Peter Singer is a very compelling argument about tackling world poverty. In this article, Singer believes that the solution to world poverty lies in the wealthy who spends money on unnecessary things. He states that the blame is on them and they have a moral obligation to donate the surplus to overseas world aid organizations. The rationale for his argument is grounded in his conception of how wealthy people should govern their income. He believes rich people should not spend money on unneeded stuff when there are plenty of starving people in the world. He uses the story of Bob to depict an instance when people choose necessities over helping people. In this story, Bob has a valuable new car that is his pride and joy. When faced with a dilemma of diverting a train from a child in harms way to where he has parked his car, Bob chooses not to perform the latter and this results in the death of the child. Singer states that families that choose to buy unnecessary things, rather than donate overseas are no better than Bob. I strongly dislike this judgement and play on emotions for several reasons. But before I explain my views, it should be noted that Singer’s self-proclamation of being a utilitarian philosopher who determines right or wrong acts based on consequences, helps decipher his intentions behind this article.

Helping humans is human nature it is not implanted in us for the want of rewards. 2010 a massive earth quake hit Haiti. Many relief teams and a total of 15 billion dollars where sent to help the suffering population, and even another We Are the World song was made. When people sent this money in not expecting anything in return. Yet most people contributed to save the people of Haiti not because of their own self greed but the kindness if their hearts

Helping others is one of the most important things one can do in today’s time I believe in helping those that I love and care about. Even people I don’t really know need help and I’m willing to help them in any way that I can. It makes my day knowing that I’ve helped someone and put a smile on both of our faces. I feel good knowing I can actually say that I made a difference in someone’s life besides mine. There are plenty of ways to help people out. You can help someone out mentally, physically, emotionally and financially.