The Unequal Distribution Of Wealth In The United States

In Peter Singer’s 1972 article titled “Famine, Affluence and Morality”, he suggests that wealthy nations have an ethical duty to contribute much more than they do to other nations who are suffering through a natural disaster, extreme poverty, famine or other issues. In this paper, I will describe Singers objective and give his argument with regards to this issue. I will describe three counter-arguments to Singer’s view which he addresses, and after that reveal Singer’s reactions to those counterarguments. I will explain Singer’s idea of marginal utility and also differentiate how it pertains to his argument. I will compare how the ideas of duty and charity alter in his suggested world. To conclude, I

The author is able to draw his audience in emotionally by speaking of such countries, and how it eventually ties in to the United States, stating that “(if) a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich,” (3) concluding the connection between the U.S. and those countries who have a lower living standard.

In Peter Singer’s 1972 post titled “Famine, Affluence and Morality”, he conveys that wealthy nations, for example the United States, has an ethical duty to contribute much a lot more than we do with regards to worldwide assistance for famine relief and/or other disasters or calamities which may happen. In this document, I will describe Singers objective in his work and give his argument with regards to this problem. I will describe 3 counter-arguments to Singer’s view which he tackles, and after that reveal Singer’s reactions to those counter-arguments. I will explain Singer’s idea of marginal

Likewise and the topic of this paper Solomon provides a thorough discussion of the problems of the present global economy. In his essay Solomon provides three mind-wrenching questions that questions and supports his methods of economic reform. The first question of “is it possible to engage in the pursuit of wealth without succumbing to greed and selfishness?” brings the topic of morality when it comes to wealth (108). Sallie McFague brings an argument stating that human beings are people filled with emotions of self-interest and will do whatever it takes to become wealthy. In the grand scheme of things this innate self-interest that is within people makes it extremely tough for countries to follow certain Jewish laws that he provided. McFague’s solution of moving towards an ecological economic system makes it tough on countries as well because it will force them to forget about their self-interest and learn to understand that they are dependent upon each other. McFague states, “ecological economics claims we

Underdeveloped countries need help from the privileged nations, but it is not mean that all of them should become rich countries’ dependents. On the other hand, the developed countries could support them with technology, quality control and new product development. Based on the aided information and technology, the developing countries could get better future development path. Third, the capacity of the lifeboat is misestimated. Although the poorer countries have larger population, rich nations obtain the majority of the world’s fortune and resources. In that case, rich nation’s supporting capacity is definitely much larger than that of the lifeboat, and these developed countries have the great ability to help more people in the world.

"How Economic Inequality Harms Societies." Richard Wilkinson:. TED Talks, July 2011. Web. 26 Feb. 2015.

Jan Narveson 's Moral Matters plays an important, if controversial role in the field of applied ethics. Narveson 's unique, contractarian approach analyzes ideas as diverse as suicide, abortion, sexual ethics and affirmative action. Amongst the more contentious aspects of the thoughts expressed in the book is his view of global poverty. Narveson extends foundationalist, anarcho-capitalist approach to this issue; arguing that while charity is morally virtuous, there is no moral obligation on the part of the global rich or developed nation to alleviate the global poor from their precarious position. He also argues that by continuing free trade, enough economic growth will occur to relieve the global poor regardless. *This essay will elaborate on Narveson 's position on global povery and criticize said position in the following aspects; *it 's counter intuitiveness*, *descent into skepticism or relativism* and a failure to account for the interconnectivity found in global financial institutions, *capitalism* and climate change.

In his essay “Lifeboat Ethics”, Garrett Hardin evaluates weather the rich nations of the world should help the poor nations, and predicts what the effects of helping may have on future generations. Hardin applies lifeboat ethics as a way of evaluating the worlds resource distribution. In the metaphor, rich countries have seats on the boat (resources) and poor countries are in the water (without resources). Hardin suggests that when rich countries help the poor they worsen situation by unsustainably stretching out finite resources to the point of collapse.

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.

It is riveting to believe that three billion people around the world suffer from poverty and with the help of several nations, nothing has been done to prevent further damage, in fact, more damage is caused in the process. The thousands of problems that countries continuously face cannot be resolved by the actions of others who are not responsible for their problems. The only way that a nation can improve is by on its own putting the effort towards fixing their problems, while many people think otherwise. Independent countries are looked down upon when they only think of themselves. Most people's first thought is to think of the possibility of them being in the position of the less fortunate, which leads to them feeling guilty.

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.

Within “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” Peter Singer delves into the topic of famine; specifically, the moral obligations individuals in affluent countries have to those who are suffering. In his example, Singer focuses on the population of East Bengal, and their struggle with famine and extreme poverty. Singer proposes that with enough aid from both individuals and various governments extreme poverty can be eradicated. Therefore, the question he presents is why poor people are dying while affluent people are spending excess money on luxuries? Singer argues that affluent people, living in affluent countries, are not helping developing countries by failing to give enough to alleviate extreme poverty.

Nowadays, the process of globalization strengthens the connections between numerous countries across the world, and enables people living in developed countries to help those who are experiencing famine, deaths and diseases in poor countries. However, the moral necessity of doing so has been controversial in human’s society for years. One philosopher named Peter Singer gives his opinion in the article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, and presents a powerful argument supporting his claim. In this essay, I will explain his conclusion and main argument, propose one objection to his argument, and evaluate the validity of my objection by considering possible response that Peter Singer would make to my objection.

     Imagine living in a community where every minute of everyday you were hungry, underclothed, and at risk for death because you are poor. Now imagine waking up and your biggest problem was which sweater to wear with which jeans. Both are scenarios that occur on a daily basis in our countries, some more extreme than others are. With that in mind a question of whether or not rich nations have an obligation to help those nations if need arises. Professor of philosophy Peter Singer and biologist Garrett Hardin both have very different opinions on this matter and the following paper will focus on their arguments.

(Novella, 2014) We still need better distribution and a more equitable system to distribute the world’s resources.