Singer 's Proposal Of Effective Altruism

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

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.

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.

Peter Singer’s argument that supports giving more money to charity is filled with convincing points, but many objections to his argument are not addressed in his essay. The idea that people are entitled to their money and therefore can do whatever they want with it is one of the biggest opposition to Singer’s argument. Singer somewhat addresses this objection, explaining that he met a man with the same opposition and wanted to talk to him about how people who earn large sums of money often times do so due to favorable social circumstances. Although this is true, it does not support the idea that people should be obligated to spend their money on charity, even if the money they earned was through lucky circumstances that others have not experienced. Peter Singer’s

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.

In his article, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Peter Singer gives a solution to help poor people around the world especially children. One important idea from his article is that people need to donate by all their extra money. He says: “The formula is simple: whatever money you’re spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away.” It is true that feeling for other’s suffering is important. However, Singer’s argument is not realistic.

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,”

Thus, the problem rests in the selfishness of affluent nations who do not distribute their grain to poor nations. By evenly distributing food, human suffering caused by absolute poverty could cease to exist. However, while both utilitarians promote selflessness as beneficial, they do so from different angles. Singer does not advocate unselfishness to increase our happiness, but because it is morally right. While Mill labels selfishness as the root of unhappiness in humans, Singer states instead that absolute poverty is “the principal cause of human misery” (Singer 220). Thus, Mill encourages unselfishness to end the suffering of the one who gives while Singer encourages it to end the suffering of the one who receives.

In this paper I will begin by explaining Singer’s utilitarian argument in “The Life You Can Save” regarding the obligation of affluent nations to give in order to alleviate global poverty. Secondly, I will analyze one objection to Singer’s argument that opposes charity. Thirdly, after examining the objection to Singer’s argument, I will present Singer’s noteworthy reply. Finally, after offering both an objection to Singer’s argument, as well as Singer’s rebuttal, I will offer my own view on whether or not Singer’s refutation is convincing.

In this chapter, Singer begins to trace the origins of effective altruism by introducing Zell Kravinsky, whom Singer considers to be a model for effective altruism. He not only relinquished his wealth for the benefit of the poor, but he also gave a part of himself by donating his organs to someone he does not know. He did so because he doesn’t believe that he his life is worth more

Although theories that suggest the non-existence of true altruism may be persuasive, it does not explain the reasons for selfless deeds done by famous figures for their love and services to people such as Mother Teresa. Batson (1991) suggested a hypothesis and feels that some people are genuinely concerned about other people’s welfare. According to his empathy-altruism hypothesis, empathic concerns produce altruism motivation and relieving their sufferings is the main priority. This hypothesis is supported by several experiments where participants are typically given an opportunity to help those in need for whom they have been led to different levels of empathic concerns.

In “Effective Altruism” by Peter Singer, Singer talks about how we can take actions that help others as much as possible. This is known as effective altruism. Effective altruism is a social movement that aims to revolutionize the way we live. Effective altruism encourages individuals to make altruism a central part of their lives and do as much good as possible, typically by contributing a fixed percentage of one's income to the world's best performing aid and development organizations. Philosopher Pete Singer for Ted Talks discuss that you can donate at least a tiny percentage of money and still be able to live a normal life. He also references many people who donated by individuals to to the world's poorest people can make a great

"We are all here on earth to help others. What I can't figure out is what the others are here for." --W. H. Auden (1)

He suggests that money given to a charity could morally bring about the same type of satisfaction, than if going on vacation or spending money on a video games (Singer 336.) Singer also suggests that often time’s society is afraid of where their money will end up or how it will be use when donated. Singer names four charities that are in existence which are single-handedly devoted to improving the lives of those less fortunate (Singer 337.)

Peter Singer, a utilitarian philosopher who specializes in applied ethics, is known either as infamous or famous depending on one’s philosophy. Singer has spoken on a multitude of sensitive topics throughout his career drawing praise and controversy. Notably you can find Singer’s position on solving world poverty in his essay “The Solution to World Poverty”. In his essay, he attempts to persuade readers to follow his thought that it is immoral not to give all your excess wealth to penurious children. To a degree, he accomplishes his objective within the first half of his essay, using two hypothetical examples that appeal to emotion. However, Singer’s case falls short of completely selling his utilitarian philosophy, due to his disconnect with the reality of human nature.