Summary Of The Singer Solution To World Poverty

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.

In Peter Singer’s article “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Singer suggests that Americans should donate all of the money they are spending on luxuries, not necessities, to the world’s poor. His argument seems simple and straight forward, but there are several unanswered questions. What is the cause of world poverty? What would this do to the American economy?

In “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” by Peter Singer, Singer uses analogies and propaganda to defend his solution for world poverty. In the article, Singer parallels a story of a man choosing to save a car over saving a child with modern Americans choosing luxuries over donating money to save underprivileged children. He provides resources of organizations to help these children, and he continuously describes the problems with both materialism in American society and children who are dying preventable deaths. Singer’s solution is that individuals should simply give away any money that is not absolutely essential for basic necessities.

In “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, Peter Singer states that if Americans do not spend that much money in indulgences, they can actually stop many people from dying. He describes two hypothetical circumstances that support his Idea. In Dora’s case, she protects the boy when she discovered his deathly destiny. Unlike Bob’s case, He did not save the child’s life because he did not want to give up his luxurious car, because he invested his whole life savings on it.

Singer’s believes that it is important to engage philosophy into the world by bring a certain amount of factual background to understand how things really are. However his simplistic approach in explaining certain key elements is almost too simplistic for the Western world that is deeply materialistic and set in keeping up with the Jones. While he has valid points, I think it is clear that his is speaking to likeminded individuals not those that could change the world. The argument applies to those that have little, for I think the rich Beverly hills house wife would think twice about entering a pond to save a child with a $5000 pair of Dolce &

Poverty is the most prevalent issue in the world. There are numerous causes of poverty, and countless issues that result from it. Poverty is defined as the state of being extremely poor. This definition varies depending on who you are asking, and what part of the world they live in. There are multiple definitions of poverty, but there are even more opinions on how it should be solved. Peter Singer believes that whatever money you are spending on luxuries should be given away(Singer).While I believe the more fortunate should give, I also believe that poverty in America is extremely exaggerated compared to other counttries thorughout the world, and there are many issues throughout Singer’s argument that simply cannot be solved.

In “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Peter Singer argues that Americans are extremely materialistic people. People have the tendency to feel the need to go out and upgrade to the newest clothes or electronics. Even though there is nothing wrong with the possessions that they have now. Specifically, he points out somebody that goes out and buys a new very expensive suit. He suggests that instead of going out and buying that new fancy suit why not donate to relief programs that will help save children’s lives. Singer states that it would only take two hundred dollars to save a child’s life. Singer suggests that instead of spending that thousand dollars on a new fancy suit why not donate it to one of the relief programs? Just in case that is not enough proof that people are very materialistic, Singer gives the example of Bob and his Bugatti on the train tracks. As you read you learn Bob had the option between letting a train kill a small child or crushing Bob’s Bugatti (380). Bob makes the decision to let the train hit the child because he had put too much money into his Bugatti. To Bob the Bugatti was his financial security for when he decided to retire and that is why he let the train hit the small child. And that is what Peter Singer is getting at when he says that American are too caught up about all of the new shiny things that they need to have. Peter also proposes that Americans have the “follow-the-crowd ethics” (382). While he is comparing Americans who are not

Singer points out the problem if the poor countries have improved or better agricultural techniques, then there might be enough foods and can consume more kilos of grain a year. Rich countries’ famers have improved seeds, fertilizers, better machinery, drilling wells, and etc. compared to poor countries’ famers. Transferring some of the wealth to the poor might change the situation. Then, there is absolute affluence where people are affluent by a reasonable standard of what we need daily. So, they have the income where those people in poor countries cannot meet those needs like foods, clothes, shelter, health, and the absolute wealth still want more needs. He also mentions that “their food for the pleasures of the palate, not to stop hunger…and after al this there is still money to spend on stereo systems, video-cameras, and oversea holidays” (645). This quote emphasis that those in absolute wealth needs on luxuries when they have enough already compared to those in absolute poor. So, considering giving a small amount of wealth or morally obligated to give them some wealth might improve a person’s life in absolute poverty. This is based on Singer’s utilitarian argument, which an action to maximizes utility on well-being and happiness. In Singer’s article, he displays that only a few countries like Netherlands, Norway, and Britain give more to help those countries in absolute poverty.

The writer behind “Singers Solution to World Poverty” advocates that U.S. citizens give away the majority of their dispensable income in order to end global suffering. Peter Singer makes numerous assumptions within his proposal about world poverty, and they are founded on the principle that Americans spend too much money on items and services that they do not need.

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

But if a majority of people in the world have this certain mindset the worlds’ problems will not be solved, they will just become worse. The only problem with people having different moral values is that there are people in the world who would do immoral actions just to get their hands on money, or whatever resource that is considered valuable to them. Singer might say that with all of the wealth in the world and all of the resources that a lot of people will want them but they shouldn’t steal or kill for that substance. That isn’t the world that we live in. If someone wants something bad enough they will do whatever it takes to get their hands on it, and they can do horrific things do

“The Singer Solution to World Poverty” by Peter Singer In the passage, “The Singer solution to World Poverty” by Peter Singer, the author uses several analogies to claims that people are supposed to aid others in who are below the poverty line, and they must sacrifice their own interest. As the first part of article begin with Dora, she is a retired schoolteacher and she is selling a nine years old homeless boy for $1,000. After that, she is spending some money of a television. However, when she knows this boy will be kill and his organs will be sell for transplantation.

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

Almost everything in life happens for a reason. For the better or the worse. But in saying this some still may not quite understand. But trust me it is not as nearly as complex as one might think. Let us just say for the simplicity of it that by changing yourself, your perspective, and your overall lifestyle you as a person can better or worsen.

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.