Summary 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

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.

Singer’s main argument is built upon the “assumption that suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad” (231). It is the duty of the utilitarian to attempt to relieve this type of suffering. His standpoint is that people should attempt to prevent bad things from happening: “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” (231). Singer contends that this is largely an uncontroversial principle since it only requires that people do not make undue sacrifices in order to promote the greater good. The example he gives to demonstrate his point is that of walking past a shallow pond and seeing a child drowning. To save the child, all that is required is for a person to get a little muddy or damp. For an immaterial sacrifice, something very bad is being prevented and therefore there should be no debate about a person’s actions.

Hook. Both John Stuart Mill and Peter Singer approach moral philosophy from a utilitarian perspective. In this paper, I will argue that Singer’s and Mill’s utilitarian philosophies share numerous similarities but also differ. Singer and Mill agree on the importance of selflessness, the idea that we can end human suffering, and the significance of consequences. However, their views conflict concerning the relevance of motivation. I contend that Singer improves upon Mill’s utilitarianism since Singer accurately recognizes the discrepancy between a life of absolute affluence and absolute poverty and also wrestles with the intricate concept of motive.

Singer introduces himself as a utilitarian philosopher. He then goes on to define what it means to have such a label. A utilitarian philosopher, as Singer defines is, “one who judges whether acts are right or wrong based by their consequences.” The call to write such an essay becomes apparent to the reader, allowing for the text to be considered in an ethical sense.

The Premise of Peter Singer’s basic argument for the issue of whether or not individuals should help others is a very probable argument. Singer argues that all individuals should be contributing to those who are in need, that way one individual is not giving more or less than another. In addition, if a person or group is able to prevent a bad thing from happening, then they might as well do so. There is not a need for them to sit around watching bad things happen, but there is a need to stand and rise to help others who are worse off than them. Singer provides the idea that possibly, one of the best ways this can be done is through raises taxes for all citizens.

Peter Singer the author of the story "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" which talks about how humans are selfish and spend their extra money on luxuries instead of donating it to charities to help starving children. Singer rambles back and forth how greedy we are and tries to make us feel guilty for those innocent starving children. Children that we suddenly have to care about just because they're almost dead "Children" are the ones to care about in this situation instead of spending our money on whatever we want we have to spend it on children you might as well have children of your own if you're doing that. In a way when you donate money to a charity you're just giving up your extra but like having a child your giving up extra for others Why would I give my hard-earned cash to some five-year-old across the planet when someone closer and richer could do the same and let me be so I can enjoy my wealth. I agree but I also disagree with Singer that the starving children need to be saved, but I don’t think this is the right solution to fixing the problem because it can cause more problems for everyone over a course of years.

Peter Singer believes that we as a global society should help one another when the time arises. Humanitarian relief should not just be a government responsibility it should be a human one as well. Whether your helping a local neighbor or someone halfway across the world it should make no difference. In the process of reading I started thinking about the situation in Syria and the migration of millions of refuges. As a global community morally we should help and stand by each other. The thought of men, women and especially children starving should drive us to help. In the Benedictine values moderation states being committed to practicing simplicity and frugality. Moderation also states to be content with living simply and finding balance in

How do we apply aged philosophies to present day problems? Like his forefather John Stuart Mill, modern thinker Peter Singer approaches moral philosophy from a utilitarian perspective. In this paper, I will argue that Singer’s and Mill’s utilitarian philosophies share numerous similarities but also differ. Singer and Mill agree that selflessness can end human suffering. In addition, their views concerning the significance of consequences align; however, they conflict on the relevance of motivation. I contend that Singer improves upon Mill’s utilitarianism by accurately recognizing the discrepancy between absolute affluence and absolute poverty and also by considering the intricate concept of motive.

In his second premise, Peter Singer asserts that “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally,

Singer proposes that “nearly as important” is a vague statement. It connotes that a person cannot say, for example, saving one’s child is more important than saving the lives of multiple children in another country, as a hardened fact. It is perceptibly more important for someone to save his or her child, while to a third party observer more lives saved is morally more important. Therefore, “nearly as important” allows some wiggle room in order to allow people to be honest with themselves about right and wrong. Essentially, Singer says that if an individual has the ability to give, there is no substantial reason not to do so. It is not a question of whether or not to give, but how much.

In Singer’s own words inspired by F.H. Bradley’s views on morality, “we can never get people to act morally by providing reasons of self-interest, because if they accept what we say and act on the reasons given, they will be only acting self-interestedly, not morally” (Singer 323).

Peter Singer’s idea of effective altruism follows greatly from his commitment to utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that claims that an action is moral only if it maximizes utility, or happiness, for the collective good. In his TED talk, Singer uses several examples of effective altruism that follow his commitment to utilitarianism. One of the main concerns related to effective altruism that he addresses is the overall effectiveness of certain charities and this relates to his commitment to utilitarianism. One example that he used was related to providing a blind American person with a trained service dog. These dogs cost about $40,000 to train and they benefit one person. However, with that same amount of money, somewhere between 400 and 2,000 people living with trachoma in developing countries could have been cured of their blindness. In this case, Singer would argue that providing a service dog to a blind American would not be ethical because it does not provide the greatest amount of

Even if in such cases it seems obvious that this person’s life will contain more evil than good if saved, we would not say that someone who saves this person’s life is doing no service by recuing him from death (Foot 1977). This hypothetical situation seems to show that we still regard a live with more evil than good as valuable, indicating that there is an aspect of life that we regard as a good in and of itself. However, we should not be inclined to conclude the fact that life is good in of itself implies that it is always better to live than to die in any circumstance. In the next section I will try to show how it can be the case that in some circumstance it is better to die than to live, even if life is good in and of itself.

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.