Peter Singer's Essay: For The Sake Of Argument

To show that there is little moral relevance between failing to rescue a child at some small cost to yourself, and failing to save a starving child in a faraway country at some similarly small cost I will be exploring an argument proposed by Singer. In doing this I will be looking into his strong and weak principles; how he would apply them and some of the criticisms of his point of view.

The article, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” by Peter Singer provides the argument that Americans should spend some of their income to help those in need, instead of using it on luxuries that they don’t need. Singer supports his argument by indicating that we are somewhat like the characters in the story. I have mixed feelings with Singer’s claim because he expects that people have money to help, but many people could be dealing with financial problems that would limit their ability to help. It is not right that Singer should make Americans feel guilty, by using life or death situations.

Singer makes the argument that wealthy people living a successful life should help those suffering in poorer countries around the world. He starts his argument by stating two principles. One is that no matter what the cause is death and suffering are bad. Second is that if one can prevent something morally bad from happening and not cause moral trouble for oneself they should do it. Singer uses

In Singer’s last argument he states a blunt and simple responce to Lucy’s opinion on giving. “ My aim is to convince you, the individual reader that you can and should be doing a lot more to help the poor.” By having the right to controle your own money and because we were fortunate enough to live in such great economical conditions, we should work harder to help others that will never have the same chances.

Peter Singer discusses that we have extensive responsibilities to the people of the world who are in poverty, nonetheless he wants you to recognise that we can encounter these responsibilities without altogether losing our worldly materialistic properties. He starts his rationalisation by emphasizing the realities which blatantly distinguish between our way of life and those who struggle to meet their "basic human needs for adequate food, water, shelter, clothing, sanitation, health care or education" (2011: 191). This is a strong and unbiased approach that makes even the most agreeable objections ethically inadequate. In relation to describing the ‘us’ in Singer’s argument it is vital to remember his collocation of absolute and absolute poverty.

Singer’s main argument in Famine, Affluence, and Morality, is that the manner in which we conduct ourselves morally needs to change. The author holds that if it is within our power to prevent a bad event from taking place without sacrificing anything else of moral importance, or without causing something equally bad to happen, then we are morally obligated to react and prevent it (Singer 231). According to him, we all have the power and the means to prevent bad situations from affecting people across the world no matter how helpless we feel. Singer provides an example where a person is placed in a situation where they can prevent something bad from happening

During this week, we have covered numerous topics, none more prominent than the ideas and beliefs of Peter Singer. We all had differing views on the topic, which allowed us to examine the text from all types of perspectives. In one of Singer’s texts, "Famine, Affluence and Morality", he evaluates the current way in which we view famine relief, charity, and morality. He believes that individuals who live in prosperous countries must change their ways to help those who are struggling. I agree with his view to a certain extent.

In this light, some may disagree with the examples provided by Kekes(2002),however Singer himself will agree because’ by not giving more than we do, we are allowing those in abject poverty to suffer; however the question is whether there is a moral obligation to do so, and if there is, how strong is this supposed obligation?

Peter Singer famine relief argument, demonstrates big moral questions to our old-fashioned notions of giving towards charity. Human beings have a moral obligation to donate more resources to those who are in need. (Singer, p 235).

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, the author of “The Singer Solution to world poverty”, who introduces himself as a utilitarian philosopher. In Singer’s mind, a utilitarian philosopher means “one who judges whether acts are right or wrong based by their consequences.” Peter Singer published this article on New York Times magazine on September 5, 1999. In this essay, he demonstrate that his solution to world poverty is encouraging Americans to donate their money which is not necessary. There is no doubt that the people who have ability to donate for the poor children are the audiences of his essay.

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.

I agree with Peter Singer’s argument that most people in affluent societies are morally required to give more of their money and resources to combating global poverty and famine than they currently do. This will be supported by the utilitarian argument, that net utility should always be maximised, by exploring his belief that this should be obligatory rather than supererogatory as well as investigating the influence of basic physical and psychological needs. I will also argue against the “Demandingness Objection”, a strong objection to Singer’s views.

Arguments are a part of life; one has to face several occasions where he or she has to deal with conflicts, disagreements and disputes to either justify their statements or to win an argument. The topic that I have selected is Peter Singer’s Ethics; one must have heart about his renowned ethical disciplines and moral principles because his work is considered as foundation of modern ethical values.

In the Singer Solution to World Poverty Peter Singer, a utilitarian, discusses his view on world poverty and poses a solution. Singer brings attention to the lack of food and medicine in many third world countries. He believes that it is the moral responsibility of Americans to help end world poverty. In order to do this he says that Americans should give up their luxuries and give most of their income which isn’t used on necessities, to aid those in need. However, he only focuses on hypothetical examples that may not apply to everyday life and fails to realize that it is not the duty of the average American to save the world.