Summary Of Peter Singer 's Argument

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.

     In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer is trying to argue that “the way people in relatively affluent countries react to a situation… cannot be justified; indeed,… our moral conceptual scheme needs to be altered and with it, the way of life that has come to be taken for granted in our society”(Singer 230). Peter Singer provides striking examples to show the reader how realistic his arguments are. In this paper, I will briefly give a summary of Peter Singer’s argument and the assumptions that follow, adding personal opinions for or against Peter’s statements. I hope that within this paper, I am able to be clearly show you my thoughts in regards to Singer.

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.

An argument is an effective strategy used to persuade individuals or public that a general opinion or perception is either right or wrong. Although, as we try to create a reasonable argument, chances are we encounter logical fallacies. A fallacy is a faulty line in reasoning that hinder our ability to make an argument invalid, affecting our ability to argue effectively. Fallacies are more commonly used as a tool to influence opinion or actions of individuals or group of individuals to as to obtain a future goal while obscuring the truth of the matter. These are more commonly referred to as propagandas, which persuades the public to be “for” or “against” certain political ideas, religion, races and opinions as a whole. A propagandist wants invoke

When natural disasters hit an area, the only way to relieve major suffering is with the help of foreign aid. Major suffering from lack of food, shelter, and medical aid in developing countries is an easily avoidable dilemma. I will present you with Peter Singers’ Basic Argument regarding our moral obligation to relieve suffering that he presents in his paper “Famine, Affluence and Mortality”. There are two problems of spatial distance and shared obligations that help to show the universality of Singer’s Prevention-Principle. Then there are three questions Kekes asks Singer in his paper “On the Supposed Obligation to Relieve Famine” regarding the Prevention-Principle. He displays potential problems for the current principle as described by Singer. The revised version of the principle, after considering the problems, does not support Singer’s original conclusion. In Affluent Countries we should drastically change our moral conceptual schemes and give up luxuries to provide aid to those in developing nations.

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.

Poverty is a result of absence of basic needs; food, shelter and medical care. If we are in a position to help an individual who is suffering, without sacrificing anything of moral importance we should help the individual. Singer used the child drowning on shallow pond story to illustrate his viewpoint. Many individuals have criticized the simplistic nature of the example and it’s discussed towards the end of the paper.

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.

In his article Rich and Poor, Peter Singer argues that we have a moral obligation to give assistance to people in absolute poverty. He derived this conclusion from three premises. The first states that if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we ought to it. The second premise is that absolute poverty is a bad thing. The third premise is that we are able to alleviate some portion of absolute poverty without giving up anything of comparable moral significance. To illustrate the urgency of our duty to assist the poor, he believes that in a case where we happen to walk pass a child drowning in a shallow pond, the vast majority of people would agree that it would be seriously morally wrong to not rescue the child. Connecting this scenario to Singer’s argument, we can say it is seriously morally wrong to not assist the poor because the lives of these people in need are of greater moral importance than the excess income we would otherwise spend on luxury goods. Thus, Singer is correct in saying that we have a moral obligation to assist the poor, and that failing to do so is equally as morally wrong as failing to rescue the drowning child.

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

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.

Singer keeps pursuing the reader by making questions like how we judge ourselves if we don’t donate money. Trying to make the reader conscious that we are in the same situation as Bob, and we should go and make a phone call to donate $200. However, Singer hesitate whether that money would reach the people who need it. The author leaves this doubt without an answer. Moreover, he tries to find a justification of why people don’t donate considering fairness. Why we should donate every surplus cent if my fair share will not donate anything. Singer reaches the assumption that we lack a clear moral line between Bob’s situation and that of any reader of this article that doesn’t donate $200 to an overseas aid agency.

The sense of guilt from not helping others is significantly reduced when there are plenty of others who do the same.4 Nevertheless, this does not alter our moral obligation towards the duty of helping others. Using the words of Singer himself in another article, we can see how this view plays out in the example of the drowning child. “Should I consider that I am less obliged to pull the drowning child out of the pond if on looking around I see other people, no further than I am, who have also noticed the child but are doing nothing?” (Singer. P,

The Singer Solution to World Poverty by Peter Singer is a very compelling argument about tackling world poverty. In this article, Singer believes that the solution to world poverty lies in the wealthy who spends money on unnecessary things. He states that the blame is on them and they have a moral obligation to donate the surplus to overseas world aid organizations. The rationale for his argument is grounded in his conception of how wealthy people should govern their income. He believes rich people should not spend money on unneeded stuff when there are plenty of starving people in the world. He uses the story of Bob to depict an instance when people choose necessities over helping people. In this story, Bob has a valuable new car that is his pride and joy. When faced with a dilemma of diverting a train from a child in harms way to where he has parked his car, Bob chooses not to perform the latter and this results in the death of the child. Singer states that families that choose to buy unnecessary things, rather than donate overseas are no better than Bob. I strongly dislike this judgement and play on emotions for several reasons. But before I explain my views, it should be noted that Singer’s self-proclamation of being a utilitarian philosopher who determines right or wrong acts based on consequences, helps decipher his intentions behind this article.