Should Rich Nations Help Poor Nations? Essay

In the article “Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor”, the author Garrett Hardin raised the question that whether the rich countries should help people suffer from poverty. He claimed that the supporting strategies for the developing countries, including the World Food Bank could result in more severe recourse inadequate issue and other disasters. In addition, a large number of immigrants flood in the US could ruin the natural environment and social balance. In that case, the author argued that regardless of the current situation, privileged nations should not provide aid to people trapped within difficulties of the underdeveloped nations. Even though, his

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.

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 “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer claims that “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.” Additionally, Singer believes that distance is no excuse for allowing something bad to happen; thus, we ought to help people on the other side of the world the same way we would help a neighbor – even though we may feel further inclined to help our neighbors. Moreover, Singer states that people should help as much as possible, without putting themselves or their dependents at risk of suffering. Peter Singer is correct in stating that people with the capacity to prevent something bad from occurring should do so; however,

Mill argues that all sources “of human suffering are in a great degree, many of them almost entirely, conquerable by human care and effort” (Mill 15). Through this statement, Mill and Singer’s perspectives realign. Singer states that “if we stopped feeding animals on grains and soybeans, the amount of food saved would-- if distributed to those who need it-- be more than enough to end hunger throughout the world” (Singer 220). Thus, the problem rests in the selfishness of affluent nations, who do not distribute their grain to poor nations. Singer furthermore argues that we could provide contraceptives to poor nations to slow their birth rates (Singer 241). By evenly distributing food and slowly the birth rate, human suffering caused by absolute poverty could cease to exist.

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 this paper I will defend John Arthur’s argument of entitlement and desert against Peter Singer’s theory of our duty to the global poor. We as privileged citizens, living in a prosperous country, do have some responsibility to help the tens of thousands of children under the age of 5 who die everyday from starvation and treatable disease. It seems natural that we as citizens of a first world country have a duty to help the global poor through charity. However that “duty” is vague and is under heavy moral debate. We as privileged citizens, living in a prosperous country, do have some responsibility to help the global poor. However, this rightful duty should not necessarily live up to the extreme and overwhelming expectations of Peter Singer. John Arthur’s argument of entitlement and desert is more realistic, logical, and more applicable to the world we live in today.

Singer’s solution creates an idea to spread wealth to the less fortunate. Although, with this large amount of income ,from wealthy individuals, all going to government organizations we will see less efficient uses of the money and unequal distribution. What our society needs most is the best use of our donations, but Singer’s argument seems to have too many issues and not enough solutions for it to work. Giving our money to small public duties holds the true answer to impoverishment. They provide a trustworthy system and work toward a very rational goal without corrupt political leaders in the government withholding our money. These actions not only help the poor, but also leave a window for technological advancement and higher quality of

Singer in his essay “The Solution to World Poverty” provides a solution for solving the issue of poverty by donating all excess money for the needs of poor people. He urges readers that everyone, who have sufficient household income, is required to give away all their unnecessary money to overseas aid organizations. Moreover, he argues that if people fail to do so, they are living unworthy immoral lives (5). In this paper I will argue that by giving extreme examples and information of aid agencies Singer makes us feel forced in donation of excess money, whereas this action should be voluntary and it should not be considered if we are not willing to give away all excess

Within “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” Peter Singer delves into the topic of famine; specifically, the moral obligations individuals in affluent countries have to those who are suffering. In his example, Singer focuses on the population of East Bengal, and their struggle with famine and extreme poverty. Singer proposes that with enough aid from both individuals and various governments extreme poverty can be eradicated. Therefore, the question he presents is why poor people are dying while affluent people are spending excess money on luxuries? Singer argues that affluent people, living in affluent countries, are not helping developing countries by failing to give enough to alleviate extreme poverty.

To start off his article, Singer proposes a hypothetical situation of a women named Dora who gained $1000 by taking a boy to a random address thinking the boy will be adopted, but comes to find out he just got sold for his organs. Then he provides another hypothetical situation of a man named Bob who potentially does or does not save the life of a boy because it would destroy his car, and he wouldn’t be able to physically save the child. Lastly, he brings up the idea of call in donations to organizations such as UNICEF and Oxfam America. All three of these main ideas have no solution to world poverty. Singer tries to connect them by saying that people need to be more moral, but he lacks the instructions on how one would do so.

What would you do if you had to constantly think about how you were going to eat or take a shower or find clean water to drink? This is the daily struggle those people in underdeveloped countries face. So, what can we do about this? Peter Singer offered an argument for the moral obligations we have to others. He argued that there is nothing that is preventing us from performing our duty to individuals that are dying from malnutrition and disease. According to Singer, each of us can all afford to save a starving child by budgeting a little. Simply spending the appropriate amount of money it takes to meet our basic needs and donating the rest can make a tremendous impact on the life of each starving child in another country. Singer suggests that we can opt for a less expensive lifestyle that is unnecessary and then the rest of the money can be donated. Many people try to argue that they cannot afford to donate, but in reality, we all have more than we actually need and we are all capable of donating a portion of our earnings. Any excuse or objection someone tries to come up with can be proven to be untrue by applying Singer’s

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.

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