The Singer Solution And World Poverty

Malnutrition is being reported by medical professionals everywhere and is of major concern in almost every state in the nation. Children who suffer the effects of malnutrition contribute to a high number of those with negative health problems. Obesity is being associated as a side effect of malnutrition, as children who don’t get enough to eat regularly eat foods that are less healthy. Childhood hunger also contributes to health conditions like a deteriorated immune system, chronic fatigue, developmental problems, and behavioral issues. Many poor children in the United States today, experience an uneasy or painful sensation caused by lack of food, or hunger.

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.

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 “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Peter Singer advises his pursuers about the deformities in the public eye's endeavor toward world destitution and the issues related with it through outlines using a hypothetical debate to express that people should give the majority of their pointless pay to abroad guide affiliations. Singer utilizes theoretical strategies to accomplish his goal of getting perusers to truly believe his musings and change their qualities and traditions.He uses a frustrated but yet straightforward tone in this article and shows his perspective in an enthusiastic way by giving various hypothetical illustrations. Singers purpose of the story is that it isn't right for individuals to spend their cash on unnecessary things, for example, excursions and eating out when there are kids experiencing hunger all over the world. In spite of the fact that, Singer offers an answer for neediness, his reaction bodes well sensibly however it isn't viable.

Peter Singer’s argument over the immoral spending of the average American is presented in his piece “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” through two analogies. He compares both situations against each other, as well as to the real life situation of most Americans. His first analogy involves a woman named Dora who delivers a boy for $1000 and then uses said money to purchase a nice TV. However the boy’s life is put in jeopardy and she is compelled to rescue the boy. Singer introduces the idea that she could’ve spent that money on herself in many extravagant ways, and states that many Americans do this already. He addresses that Dora is in fact unlike most Americans in that most Americans do not directly cause the misfortune

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 his essay “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, philosopher Peter Singer claims that the solution to world poverty is for Americans to donate all their income not required for necessities to overseas help organizations. His article, published on September 5, 1999 in The New York Times Magazine, poses several hypothetical and dramatized situations which he uses as comparisons concerning Americans who do not donate their excess income. Singer breaks down how much it takes to specifically save a single child. The use of his precise language within the text establishes a strong tone and voice to let his readers know he’s serious.

The article, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” by Peter Singer provides the argument that Americans should spend some of their income to help those in need, instead of using it on luxuries that they don’t need. Singer supports his argument by indicating that we are somewhat like the characters in the story. I have mixed feelings with Singer’s claim because he expects that people have money to help, but many people could be dealing with financial problems that would limit their ability to help. It is not right that Singer should make Americans feel guilty, by using life or death situations.

In Peter Singer’s article, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Singer argues for the conclusion that those with substantial amounts of wealth are morally obligated to donate their income to help relieve world famine if they are able to do so without a substantial sacrifice. In addressing what consists a substantial sacrifice, Singer offers two forms of his arguments – often viewed as the ‘strong’ version and the ‘weak’ version. I argue that Singer’s argument does not allow for humans to have a sense of integrity, is weak as it doesn’t specify how much wealth one should give, and finally, should Singer have his way, the problem of famine could be even greater.

In “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Peter Singer urges all Americans to donate any money not being used for sustenance to help children overseas. When I read this article in my AP Language and Composition class last year, I realized the duty I had as a privileged individual, to help these underserved communities. However, this was not something my friends and I could engage in-- we were all broke and didn’t even have jobs, not to mention the harrowing expense of future college tuitions haunting our dreams. But this didn’t mean we couldn’t help save children’s lives. I found three other colleagues who shared my goal of helping kids globally and we collaborated to co-found our high school’s own UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund) club.

But while it looks easy on paper, it is much harder than it appears. Singer uses unrealistic scenarios to guilt the reader into donating. For example, he refers to a Brazilian film “Central Station.” A woman, Dora, can make $1,000 if she can persuade a homeless 9-year-old to follow her to an address, where the boy is to be adopted by foreigners. She delivers the boy, and buys a new TV set with the money she has made. Later on the woman learns that the boy has been sold to organ peddlers, and he will soon be killed. The inference Singer is trying to make is that there's no difference between someone who sells a child to organ peddlers, and an American upgrading their television set, because both are “ethically wrong” due to the fact that the money could have been donated. But is passive selfishness really on the same level as the direct murder of an innocent child? Despite the fact that the money for a TV set could save a child's life, it is far different, than the brutal murder of a small boy. The comparison is simply absurd, and this is not the only time he uses it. In another scenario, a man is on the train tracks and is torn between saving a child or his Bugatti from a runaway train. The man throws the switch, redirecting the train and saving his Bugatti. The boy is killed. These two, farfetched scenarios were used to show that we too have the chance to save a child’s life. Writers, politicians, philosophers, religious leaders, try and guilt you into donating. And according to Singer, those who choose not to give away their money, are compared to the many Germans who looked away when the Nazi horrors were being committed, which is another outlandish

Singer’s main argument in Famine, Affluence, and Morality, is that the manner in which we conduct ourselves morally needs to change. The author holds that if it is within our power to prevent a bad event from taking place without sacrificing anything else of moral importance, or without causing something equally bad to happen, then we are morally obligated to react and prevent it (Singer 231). According to him, we all have the power and the means to prevent bad situations from affecting people across the world no matter how helpless we feel. Singer provides an example where a person is placed in a situation where they can prevent something bad from happening

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 provides the statistical data to strengthen his argument and claims that one third of annual income of the Americans is spent on unnecessities (Singer, “The Singer Solution” 1). In Unger's research, Singer found out that $200 could save one child's life ( Singer, “The Singer Solution” 2). What is $200 for us compared with the children’s lives? It is nothing. The author emphasizes that we spend the same amount of money when we dine out at an expensive restaurant. Instead of going to restaurant, we could do something better with our money and save a child. But there are a lot of suffering children all over the world, who also deserve to live. The author, furthermore, encourages people does not stop at $200 and to donate all excess money from their income: “the formula is simple: whatever money you're spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away” (Singer, “The Singer Solution” 4). He provides direct phone numbers of such organizations as UNICEF, Oxfam America that engaged in helping the needy people, thereby showing us that we have all possibilities and information to alleviate needless suffering (Singer, “The Singer Solution” 2). Thus, Peter invokes readers to give up going to restaurants, as well as to give up buying other luxuries so that one child’s life will be saved. He concludes that if we do not sacrifice our

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.