Singer Utilarianism

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.

Singer’s argument to world famine is giving charity is neither charitable nor generosity, but it’s an obligation to give money out and if you don’t, then it’s morally wrong. He states we as individuals have a duty to help reduce poverty and death because of starvation. Singer argues, suffering and death due to the lack of food, is terrible. Hence we have the power to help those group of people. By that, people can cut down the famine and suffering by giving famine relief and in doing so, we as individuals have to give a certain amount of money from our standard of living. This fails to recognize people’s own intrinsic moral values because Singer says we must always make the morally best decision.

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

Jimmy carter once said, "We know that a peaceful world cannot long exist, one-third rich and two-thirds hungry." With the world now more interconnected than ever there might be a solution to world hunger by distribution of wealth. Peter Singer, in his article titled, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, takes this concept of unity that we have on a global scale and tries to tackle the issue of world hunger. Before we dive into the article we will focus on utilitarianism to help us understand his perspective better. Following, we will analyze Singer and his theory, by strongly arguing that famine should be given moral worth. A stance is made that if you are aware of suffering that is going on elsewhere than it is your responsibility to do something about it. He points out that it doesn’t matter if anyone else is helping nor does it matter the distance. Singer does make some good points, however, these do not come without objections.

Singer proposes that responsibility and charity is our ethical duty. We “ought” to assist unknown people in need of assistance if we are capable to and that it would be morally incorrect not to contribute. We must put on our old clothes instead of purchasing new ones just for the simple truth that you want to be well dressed. Duty and charity change in this future world since in this era, many people won't

Accepting the three premises seems to require us to reconsider the meaning of charity and duty. The obligation to give as much as we can becomes a matter of duty not charity. This upends the notion where charitable giving to those in need is praiseworthy, but failure is not to be condemned. By the force of Singer’s argument, failure to give is wrong because we must do everything in our power to direct every extra resource to those suffering from death and starvation. This changes our conception of giving from optional to obligatory. For example, it would wrong to buy a new shirt or enjoy a fine meal instead of giving to famine relief. Singer’s conclusion is simply This

Peter Singer, is an Australian moral philosopher, who bases many of his arguments around the idea of Utilitarianism. He uses those ideas to help argue why people should do certain things in today’s society. In this specific argument he makes a case that people should feel obligated to donate lots of their own money to people suffering around the world.

In Peter Singer’s article, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Singer argues for the conclusion that those with substantial amounts of wealth are morally obligated to donate their income to help relieve world famine if they are able to do so without a substantial sacrifice. In addressing what consists a substantial sacrifice, Singer offers two forms of his arguments – often viewed as the ‘strong’ version and the ‘weak’ version. I argue that Singer’s argument does not allow for humans to have a sense of integrity, is weak as it doesn’t specify how much wealth one should give, and finally, should Singer have his way, the problem of famine could be even greater.

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 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

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.

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

Addressed in his essay “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, Peter Singer’s full assertion is that, it is morally wrong for people to spend money on morally insignificant things instead of spending money to prevent suffering and dying from preventable diseases and famine. He begins his argument with the first premise: “suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad.”(231) Such premise is direct, simple, accepted by most people in the society. Peter Singer hence take such assumption as accepted by the readers and quickly moves to his next premise.