Rich And Poor By Peter Singer Essay

In a piece by Peter Singer entitled, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Singer argues that Americans should prevent atrocious situations to arise but, we also should not sacrifice something of equal importance while doing so. Moreover, in the piece by John Arthur, “World Hunger and Moral Obligation: The Case Against Singer,” Arthur disagrees with Singer; he believes that we should help the poverty-stricken but, it is not morally imperative to do so.

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.

“The Singer Solution to World Poverty” appeared in the New York Times Magazine by bioethics professor Peter Singer. Singer’s solution to end world hunger and provide proper medical care has good points and effective strategies. However, other actions could take place instead of what Singer proposes by acknowledging a wider bae of people in the middle class instead of only the “prosperous” people. Singer only suggests donating to organizations that deal with overseas problems. What about the problems Americans face? How do we expect to help other struggling countries when we cannot provide the proper support to our own citizens? While providing proper nutrients and medical care like Singer suggests, organizations could also be providing educators

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

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.

This paper explores Peter Singer’s argument, in Famine, Affluence, and Morality, that we have morally required obligations to those in need. The explanation of his argument and conclusion, if accepted, would dictate changes to our lifestyle as well as our conceptions of duty and charity, and would be particularly demanding of the affluent. In response to the central case presented by Singer, John Kekes offers his version, which he labels the and points out some objections. Revisions of the principle provide some response to the objections, but raise additional problems. Yet, in the end, the revisions provide support for Singer’s basic argument that, in some way, we ought to help those in need.

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.

The world today is composed of two extreme societal positions: the affluent and those who are stricken by poverty. Despite these class distinctions, there is one overbearing law that governs all- morality. In Peter Singer’s essay “On Poverty” he states that those who spend their surplus wealth on luxury, instead of donating to those suffering from poverty, are morally indecent. Although morality of the offender and the bystander may be equal, Singer’s accusation of Americans being selfish is stereotypical and the task of removing all hard-earned wealth is arduous and unrealistic.

This essay will analyse philosopher Peter Singer’s argument on the duties that should be allocated to wealthy people in terms of assisting people from undeveloped nations to combat global poverty. In the first section, his argument will be explained and summarized, followed by the second section which will present the minor flaws opposing philosophers find in his argument, however find his overall argument to be valid. Singer’s primary argument on world poverty goes as follows. Singer argues that as humans, we have a moral duty to try to prevent emotional or physical harm being inflicted on others, as long as we aren’t required to sacrifice anything of comparable significance (e.g. harm ourselves to the same degree.) He says, in relation to an analogy presented that requires ‘Bob’ to decide between the life of a child and his precious car, “the point it raises is a serious one: only when the sacrifices become very significant indeed would most people be prepared to say that Bob does nothing wrong when he decides not to throw the switch.”

In “Rich and Poor,” Peter Singer argues that the existence of absolute affluence, allows the suffering and death of others who are in absolute poverty, and this is morally equivalent to murder. In this paper I plan to argue that although absolute affluence is an issue that should be addressed through spending money on luxury items such as technology, we are able to advance our education, which can ultimately lead to bringing the affluent and the impoverished together to create a world where poverty does not have to exist at all. Singer argues we are responsible for the consequences of our actions, which means that frivolous spending on luxury items instead of using that money to benefit the people in absolute poverty has the consequence of someone in absolute poverty suffering or dying. This results in the frivolous spender being responsible for their death. Although the people in absolute affluence do not set out with the intent to murder, or even have the malice behind it, they still are considered morally responsible.

Peter Singer provides evidence which helps us analyze the effects of poverty that exist in the fashion world. As exposed in the documentary The True Cost, the nature of free enterprise and the new world of business in a globalized economy has created a sense of hopelessness for millions of people. The cost of becoming an instrument of labor as visualized in the movie has force us to reevaluate what is important to our own humanity? Our introspective thoughts infused by a compelling oratory given by Shima Akhter one of forty million garment workers forces us to ask ourselves what can we do alleviate poverty in the world? The “Fast Fashion” industry has generated trillions of dollars for those few individual at the top of big business while the common garment workers are being destroyed by absolute poverty.

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,”

Everyone deserves the chance to pursue happiness and better life. Some of the rich are born to rich, because their parents or grandparents are rich. They are rich because they are lucky, and they should be sympathetic to the poor who are not lucky as them. Although Singer argues that the rich should give away all the resource they have except their necessities for life, there is no clear definition for necessities. Thus, the rich can give away some of their money and resource to the poor by their will. Devoting in altruism, they can get the joy from helping others. Because there is not enough money for the poor to live better life without hard working, the poor will not depend on the aid from the rich but obtain their chance to improve themselves and make more

Peter Singer is often regarded as one of the most productive and influential philosophers of modern times. He is well-known for his discussions of the acute social, economic, and political issues, including poverty and famines. In his “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, Singer (1972) discusses the problem of poverty and hunger, as well as the way this problem is treated in the developed world. Singer believes that charity is inseparable from morality, and no distinction can be drawn between charity and duty. The philosopher offers possible objections to his proposition and relevant arguments to justify his viewpoint. The modern world does not support Singer’s view, treating charity as a voluntary activity, an act of generosity that needs

In The Politics of the Rich and Poor Phillips claims that the policies implemented during President Regan’s 1980 and 1984 terms enlarged the gap between the rich and the poor in which the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. Phillips states “this book is about the redistribution of power and wealth during the 1980’s: who got it, who lost it and through what policies” (Phillips 1990). Phillips the uses the rest of the book the explain just that.