Wealthy Nations Have A Moral Obligation to Educate Poor Nations

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

The author published this collection of essays in 2004, when he was approximately at the developed age of 47 years old. The essay can be seen as a nostalgic reflection back to his past, to one of the many worthwhile, valuable, and subtle lessons taught to him by his mother. The author perhaps wrote this specific essay to act as a catalyst for the audience to realize the larger injustices that happen to people around the world like the level of severity in poverty that exists in both undeveloped countries around the world and the ignored corners of our own backyards as a result of the greed and imperialism of capitalist nations and their consumerist ideals. The publishing of this book roughly coincides with the opening of hostilities when the United States invaded Iraq in 2003.

Peter Singer's persuasive essay strips us bare of our selfish wants as he equates our tendency to accumulate all the stuff we don’t need with ignoring the plight of drowning children and, as such, being responsible for the death of those children. We are, Singer convincingly argues, products of our fortunate “social capital”; therefore, we have an obligation to those who do not have a social capital.

There needs to be a flexible set of requirements regarding just social welfare and other issues that are linked to the poverty and inequality that most, if not all societies face. We are currently in what seems a globalized economy, where a simple economic action from one place in the world can affect all other countries in one way or another. It is important that we concentrate and deliberate on what is needed for social justice, human rights and equity to work properly in regards to every society’s main concern. Although these three concepts are hard to exercise in a way that no more issues can emerge from them it is possible to adjust them to alleviate the conditions and diminish the damages caused by the lack of

We all heard countless solutions on how to solve world poverty. In Peter Singer’s article “Rich and Poor”, he discusses how he thinks this problem can be fixed. Singer claims that we all have a responsibility to support people who are in extreme need and are suffering from absolute poverty. Singer believes that poverty could be fixed if people give up their luxuries and give the money that they spent on unnecessary things to those who are destitute. In Singer 's mind, we all have a duty to give until we are no longer able to, or until the problem with the world poverty will be solved. Singer feels that it is necessary for people who are more wealthy to help those who are less fortunate by donating money right away to organizations that help fight poverty. In his opinion, by not helping those in need we are negatively responsible for their suffering and thus failing to live a moral life.

This paper explores Peter Singer’s argument, in Famine, Affluence, and Morality, that we have morally required obligations to those in need. The explanation of his argument and conclusion, if accepted, would dictate changes to our lifestyle as well as our conceptions of duty and charity, and would be particularly demanding of the affluent. In response to the central case presented by Singer, John Kekes offers his version, which he labels the and points out some objections. Revisions of the principle provide some response to the objections, but raise additional problems. Yet, in the end, the revisions provide support for Singer’s basic argument that, in some way, we ought to help those in need.

Philosophers, Peter Singer’s and Onora O’Neill’s attempt to draw connection between poverty and moral philosophy and how aid should be directed towards groups in absolute poverty. The aim of this paper is to provide an extensive analysis on the work of both the philosophers’ while outlining some of the limitations each of the theories has.

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.

Singer in his essay “The Solution to World Poverty” provides a solution for solving the issue of poverty by donating all excess money for the needs of poor people. He urges readers that everyone, who have sufficient household income, is required to give away all their unnecessary money to overseas aid organizations. Moreover, he argues that if people fail to do so, they are living unworthy immoral lives (5). In this paper I will argue that by giving extreme examples and information of aid agencies Singer makes us feel forced in donation of excess money, whereas this action should be voluntary and it should not be considered if we are not willing to give away all excess

Peter Singer, a prominent moral philosopher and public intellectual, has written at length about many ethical issues. He subscribes to utilitarianism, which is the position that the best moral action is that which maximizes the well-being of conscious entities; this view is made apparent through his writings. In his essay What Should a Billionaire Give—and What Should You? Singer presents the idea that although the rich are capable of mitigating extreme poverty, there has been little improvement for the poorest 10 percent of the world’s population. He maintains that all life is equal and, therefore, saving the lives of the poor is a moral imperative for those who can afford to. “We are far from acting in accordance to that belief,”

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.

For example; the United States itself and other nations such as Somalia and Congo continue to have people with no shelter over their head and those with no food to eat, regardless of how hard some may strive to make ends meet, they are still in poverty. As those more auspicious, we should consider it as a moral obligation to assist those people who are less fortunate, be it those in the same nation as us or those farther away.

The efforts should be universally and equally made, people outside the community should not be excluded. However, in Singer’s view, people should maximize the given help and contribute more as long as the sacrificed benefits of the affluent are to be less morally significant compared to the bad thing will otherwise occur. This is an unrealistic promotion is technically impractical since there is no mechanism about how to redistribute the wealth over the world. In addition it is and too compulsory, the gap between the low willing to donate and the requirement of full-scale support will be huge and no legislative body will these

William David Ross’s theory of right conduct is an alternative to utilitarianism and deontological theories. Instead of focusing on the happiness and pleasure created from actions or the duty to perform a certain kind of action, Ross offers claims that prima facie duties should be the basis of moral decision-making. In this paper, I will explain the general concept of a prima facie duty and present Ross’s seven prima facie duties and how one makes moral judgments when they conflict.

moral obligation rich nations have to help the poorest countries. In this sense, scholars point out