Who Really Cares? New York : Basic Books, 2006

Dobelstein, Andrew W. Moral Authority, Ideology, And The Future Of American Social Welfare. [N.p.]: Westview Press, 1999. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 15 May 2013.

He illustrates, “Of every thousand dollars spent in so-called charity to-day, it is probable that $950 is unwisely spent; so spent, indeed, as to produce the very evils which it proposes to mitigate or cure” (494).

In this article, Singer argues that prosperous people should give all money not used on necessities to charity. This bold argument will either persuade or disinterest someone fully. There are many pros and cons of Singer’s argument.

Carnegie believes that surplus money should be used in a way that produces the greatest benefit to society as long as the wealth is spent wisely. He argues that it is not wise to give one’s fortune to a charity because there is no guarantee that the money would actually benefit the poor. “Of every thousand dollars spent in so called charity to-day,” Carnegie states, “it is probable that $950 is unwisely

Everyone has something to give. What is given can be quantified in many different ways. Some people give ideas. Some people give their loyalty. For others, their effort and hard-work. Few though, are able to give what men like Andrew Carnegie were able to give; hope. That hope, however, came in the form of money. Building wealth is no easy task but giving that wealth away for the benefit of society, is the ultimate good that can be done with it. Carnegie wasn’t the only, or even the first to realize the importance of philanthropy. Johns Hopkins and John Rockefeller were two other very important players throughout American history that were instrumental in improving the society we live in today. With the current climate that Americans find themselves

In “The Gospel of Wealth”, Andrew Carnegie claims that wealth should be administered for the “common good” of a community, instead of merely distributed to the people within it. More specifically, he frowns upon the rich men who bequeath money to their heirs after their death, instead of donating to public institutions during their lifetime. The latter action will, according to Carnegie, “derive lasting advantage [from the masses of their fellows], and thus dignify their own lives.” (Carnegie, 13) He uses the creation of the Cooper Institute, a private humanities college, as well as Samuel Tilden’s posthumous funding of the New York Public Library as examples of publicly beneficial administrations of wealth.

A man can give money to the homeless on the same day as …... . Barbara Lazear Ascher wrote a piece called “On Compassion” stating that through people's own experiences, they learn compassion with the trouble right next to us. An argument that has merit, but only to a certain extent. Experiences of the individual will have them learn compassion on their own, but having the unfortunate in our faces will not guarantee a person to learn compassion. In fact, it may do the opposite and create hostility as all of us are imperfect.

Whereas a strongly conservatives averaged neutral on Ingroup / loyalty statements, while agreeing with fairness / Reciprocity, Harm / Care and Purity / Sanctity and strongly agreeing with Authority / Respect(Graham, Haidt and Nosek 2009).

To simply give money as “charity” to a man who has none, is to only feed into his follies as a man. Carnegie believes that in an every 1,000 dollars given to charity, 950 dollars of it goes to waste. The rich man who simply hands money away in small sums to others themselves only stalls the growth of character and ambition throughout the Nation.

Different ideologies tend to appeal to different demographic characteristics such as gender, class, race, etc. because a person’s background will affect which system of ideas they most closely align with. Liberalism and conservatism, for example, are ideologies that regularly contradict each other, because they appeal to different demographics based upon many factors such as class, race, gender, religion, etc. The general worldview of liberalism is that people have individual rights and liberty, while promoting progress. On the other hand, conservatism places greater importance of keeping tradition and strict regulation of rules. In determining the extent of appeal to different demographics, one must assess the ways in which both ideologies

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,”

In this paper I will begin by explaining Singer’s utilitarian argument in “The Life You Can Save” regarding the obligation of affluent nations to give in order to alleviate global poverty. Secondly, I will analyze one objection to Singer’s argument that opposes charity. Thirdly, after examining the objection to Singer’s argument, I will present Singer’s noteworthy reply. Finally, after offering both an objection to Singer’s argument, as well as Singer’s rebuttal, I will offer my own view on whether or not Singer’s refutation is convincing.

Helping people is a noble thing to do especially when it comes to the application of natural justice, where human beings help those who are suffering. There is always a hidden intention in every action that is obscured by the notion of philanthropy. Returned favors expectation might not be the ultimate intention as to why people may perform an act (Michael, 1978). However, it will be illogical to say that these intentions were

He suggests that money given to a charity could morally bring about the same type of satisfaction, than if going on vacation or spending money on a video games (Singer 336.) Singer also suggests that often time’s society is afraid of where their money will end up or how it will be use when donated. Singer names four charities that are in existence which are single-handedly devoted to improving the lives of those less fortunate (Singer 337.)

I can imagine a perfect world. A world where morality is of upmost importance in our dealings with each other, where morals are critically examined, and debated with reason as well as passion. This world would be a pinnacle of human achievement. A pinnacle that we are nowhere near. Why is this? Well, in today's society, morals are often associated with obeying the law, and since laws are legislated by politicians, they are subject to politics. Laws are not right in and of themselves, and morals are not a matter of a majority's opinion. Some matters that are in the domain of charity are done through politics, often citing morality as a reason. Where exactly does charity fit in with morals? With politics? In this paper I will explore the