Singer's Argument

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 solution brought up a strong argument on morals, but not a realistic solution to world poverty. The long-term consequences of his solution would have been devastating to the global economy because to make money, you have to spend money. Every time I think of his solution, one famous quote comes to mind-“Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” The cause of poverty

Singer’s principle of equality is the equal, impartial consideration of all like interests (Singer, p. 20). It is a non-factual principle that presents an ideal, normative approach, rather than reflecting how the world actually looks. It relates to racism as it is the neglect of the interests of a race, or the prioritisation of a race that leads to racist policies (Study Guide, p. 63). Principle of equality would require the interests are weighed impartially, and seeing as weighing interests based on race is as arbitrary as hair colour or names and therefore irrelevant, it would eliminate much blatant racism. Singer (p. 27)holds even if different averages in IQ among different races were found, it wouldn’t result in different treatment as intelligence doesn’t affect basic human interests. This doesn’t rule all forms of racism, interests based on beliefs and statements, or attitudes and emotions are still considered (Study guide, p. 58).

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.

In Peter Singer’s essay “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, published on September 5th, 1999 in The New York Times Magazine, Singer claims that the solution to world poverty is for Americans to donate excess income to aid organizations. His article consists of a gathering of exaggerated situations which he uses to engage readers, while also adequately supporting an argument of moral duty by comparing the hypothetical scenarios to Americans who do not donate. Singer exhibits an appeal to pathos to a substantial amount throughout his article. The provided situations set an outline for the reader to feel certain, appealing emotions.

Peter Singer is an Australian philosopher who has written extensively on poverty and social issues. Peter Singer states that “giving to charity” or neither charitable nor generous; it is individuals duty and not giving would be considered wrong. In his work he presented arguments on Why is it considered our duty to give?

Peter Singer’s central idea focuses around how grim death and suffering from lack of food, shelter and medical care really is. He further argues that if we can prevent something this unfortunate from happening, without sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought to do it. In other words, as privileged citizens, we ought to prevent all of the death and suffering that we can from lack of food, shelter and medical care from happening by giving our money and resources to charity (Chao, 2016, in-class discussion). In the terms of this argument, death and suffering from poverty are preventable with the

In “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Singer argues that all households should donate a percentage of their incomes to charity. Majority of the American population is satisfied with donating little to nothing to those in need, but seldom rethink the purchase of the luxury items. It is a commonly accepted fact that those who work for their earnings are deserving of the monies that they receive. Unfortunately, those in third world countries that don’t have the same resources and opportunities are unable to sustain their livelihood. Some children in third world countries suffer from deprivation of food and shelter; while those that are fortunate enough to have jobs are paid only cents a day. (“Some H-1B Workers Underpaid, Federal

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

Singer’s arguments rest on the simple assumption that suffering, from lack of basic resources, is bad. Accordingly, his argument is that the way people in prosperous countries respond to situations like that in Bengal is not morally justified. His argument is that if we have the power to prevent bad situations from occurring, “without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance,” (Singer, 231) then we have a moral obligation to do so. In order to get people to give the appropriate amount of money Singer insinuates that the social distinction between duty and charity must be reconsidered. Moreover, charity should no longer be seen as a supererogatory act, or rather an act that is socially perceived as virtuous but has no social consequences if ignored. Thus, his

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.

For the work journal project, I went around and ask two questions that we discuss in intro ethic class. One of the question was P1 star from singer argument, it stated “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening without scarifying anything morally significant then we ought to do it Some people may say this argument was obvious but wanting to see where have to think about argument that singer proposed. The other question was the murderer at the door theory because kant believe you do not have the right to kill but government have the right does. I went around and asked two separate age groups because this will allow me to get two point of view of people in life. The first age was college students around my age, this group

I really liked what you thought about Scott Joplin’s song “The Entertainer.” I agree with you that his upbeat and fun music probably helped lift other people’s spirits in those oppressive times. I researched more about Scott Joplin. When white critics belittled his work, he responded by publishing ragtime piano exercises for students and the genre those critics had disapproved of only grew.