The 's Argument For Children Suffering From Lack Of Food, Shelter, And Medical Attention

Singer illustrates how when a person is in need or lacking, we should give them a lending hand until they are on their feet. Peter Singer writes about how if one can use their fortune to reduce the suffering of others, without hurting or diminishing the wellbeing of themselves or others, it would be immoral not to do so. The key here would be without diminishing themselves or the wellbeing of others. He states that this duty is equivalent to the saving of a drowning child. He explains how if someone were to see a child drowning in a pond it would be morally wrong to not help the child,

We have the capabilities to decrease this suffering and pain nevertheless, we disregard the problem and do nothing at all, which can be immoral. We should modify our opinions of morality so as to develop a dedication to helping people in terrible need.

Is there a morally relevant difference between failing to rescue a drowning child at some small cost to yourself, and failing to save a starving child in a faraway country at some similarly small cost?

The premises of the argument support the conclusion because Singer says that suffering from food, shelter and medical care are bad. He is trying to prevent those things from happening if it is in our power. If we can prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything significant then we have to morally do it. For example- if you see a child wandering around a store lost and crying, you ought to help

Singer believes that we should all give to charity until we reach a point where we lose something morally equivalent to the people starving or until we are equal. To do this, because not all private individuals would, would require some sort of force. Because this would have to happen it would essentially eliminate the notion of charity. It will no longer be a generous donation of your earnings to help others, it will be a repressive act of a totalitarian regime to try and steal your property. This will lead to a chain reaction of events that I will explain further. People work hard to earn what they have and they should be able to do what they want with it. Thievery is also immoral and it would be done on a grand scale taking almost everything people have. This raises another question, is this as immoral as letting people starve? I would argue it is close because you are taking away people’s livelihoods that they worked for and are shoving them into poverty. I know that people struggling in developing nations

Accepting the three premises seems to require us to reconsider the meaning of charity and duty. The obligation to give as much as we can becomes a matter of duty not charity. This upends the notion where charitable giving to those in need is praiseworthy, but failure is not to be condemned. By the force of Singer’s argument, failure to give is wrong because we must do everything in our power to direct every extra resource to those suffering from death and starvation. This changes our conception of giving from optional to obligatory. For example, it would wrong to buy a new shirt or enjoy a fine meal instead of giving to famine relief. Singer’s conclusion is simply This

In this excerpt from, The Life You Can Save by Peter Singer, he argues that it is immoral for people doing well to stand by why the unfortunate suffers. In his excerpt, he attacks his readers with scenarios to test their morality. As his argument continues he presents jaw-dropping data to the reader on poverty and affluence. Then he leaves his readers with premises to the conclusion of his argument. First premise: Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad. Second premise: If it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so. Third premise: By donating to aid agencies, you can prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter,

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.

Singer makes the argument that wealthy people living a successful life should help those suffering in poorer countries around the world. He starts his argument by stating two principles. One is that no matter what the cause is death and suffering are bad. Second is that if one can prevent something morally bad from happening and not cause moral trouble for oneself they should do it. Singer uses

Singer makes the points that suffering which leads to death is wrong and if an individual has the opportunity to help someone without giving up something of equal or greater value, they should take the opportunity. Singer uses an example of Bengal in 1971 where the government and its people ignored its individuals suffering to highlight the effects of ignoring these serious issues. Singer also uses an analogy that since clothes and a baby for example do not share the same moral cost, one

Take for instance a person who is suffering from a life-ending illness, a disease that they did not cause. When they die there will be no further suffering because they have no family or friends. They ask for our help to end their suffering through medically assisted death. Do we have a moral obligation to assist this person? The two bad things here are the persons suffering and their wish of a quicker death. If the extinction of a human life leads to prevent more bad things or suffering, then Singer would say we should help them. However, how do you quantify which bad thing is worse? The fact of the matter is you can’t. And whatever action you choose you will stop a bad thing, but a bad thing still would occur. The paradox here further undermines Singer’s

Singer states “Most of us, perhaps all of us, fall seriously short of our moral obligations to the starving.” You should contribute to famine relief. I think the crux of Singers argument is that of moral equality. Singer states there are too many people dying due to starvation and suffering that can be prevented. There are deaths from starvation, lack of shelter, and lack of medicine.

Response - Singer initially states that living an ethical life is contingent on being an effective altruist - i.e. an individual that donates the majority of their salary to the less fortunate, thereby surviving on the essentials required to live. (Igneski, 147) He argues that individuals are not living the most ethical life possible unless they follow the utilitarian principle of creating the most good for the greatest number of people. (Igneski, 148) However, upon further study of individuals mentioned in Singer’s work Practical Ethics and the Life You Can Save, we are able to recognize that effective altruists are not required to be utilitarians, they can value their children and friendships as much as they do strangers, they do not have to sacrifice important life projects in order to help others, and they can live with more than the bare minimum needed to survive. (Igneski, 148) Although Igneski disagrees with Singer’s initial statement that in order to live an ethical life you need to be an effective altruist, she agrees that people are morally obligated to help those in need. She holds that living an ethical life does not solely mean aiding needy persons, but also requires people to act out of emotion and attachment for their loved ones, while expressing concern for those nearby. (Igneski, 148) For example, an individual that once suffered from a heroin addiction now has an occupation as a drug abuse counsellor and donates to an organization that helps substance abusers across the world. This person is able to fulfill their desired life project of helping those suffering from drug abuse after receiving help

A drowning child. Peter Singer tells a hypothetical story of a drowning child in his lectures and writings. The story ends in the question of what would you do? You are walking around a pond or body of water and see a child struggling to stay above water. A bystander may be hollering for help. You are wearing new, expensive clothing. If you stop to help the drowning child you will wreck your new clothes. If you don’t stop and help the child could drown. What do you do? He uses this scenario to compare to starving children in other countries and how our duty to help them is the same. He uses “out of sight, out of mind” to describe what a lot of peoples’ thoughts are when it comes to helping others and feels that distance shouldn’t change whether or not we help someone.

The second argument Singer dissects is the argument that the reason nonhumans cannot suffer is because they cannot say “I am in pain and I am