##versical Dilemmas, And Peter Singer's The Singer Solution To World Poverty

Suffering is embedded in our daily lives. There are devastating things going on in our daily environments and yet, people seldom realize this as they occupy themselves with other tasks. W.H. Auden’s, Musée des Beaux Arts, is a statement on human perceptions and how we use them to observe, or block out human suffering. While we are doing ordinary things like eating, or opening a window, bad things can be happening to others and it is as easy as looking up, to see what is actually going on. Auden illustrates societies’ indifference to human suffering through the form of his poem and by alluding to artwork that compares human perceptions and juxtaposes ordinary images with images of suffering and tragedy.

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.

“The Singer Solution to World Poverty” appeared in the New York Times Magazine by bioethics professor Peter Singer. Singer’s solution to end world hunger and provide proper medical care has good points and effective strategies. However, other actions could take place instead of what Singer proposes by acknowledging a wider bae of people in the middle class instead of only the “prosperous” people. Singer only suggests donating to organizations that deal with overseas problems. What about the problems Americans face? How do we expect to help other struggling countries when we cannot provide the proper support to our own citizens? While providing proper nutrients and medical care like Singer suggests, organizations could also be providing educators

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

Poverty is the most prevalent issue in the world. There are numerous causes of poverty, and countless issues that result from it. Poverty is defined as the state of being extremely poor. This definition varies depending on who you are asking, and what part of the world they live in. There are multiple definitions of poverty, but there are even more opinions on how it should be solved. Peter Singer believes that whatever money you are spending on luxuries should be given away(Singer).While I believe the more fortunate should give, I also believe that poverty in America is extremely exaggerated compared to other counttries thorughout the world, and there are many issues throughout Singer’s argument that simply cannot be solved.

In “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Peter Singer argues that Americans are extremely materialistic people. People have the tendency to feel the need to go out and upgrade to the newest clothes or electronics. Even though there is nothing wrong with the possessions that they have now. Specifically, he points out somebody that goes out and buys a new very expensive suit. He suggests that instead of going out and buying that new fancy suit why not donate to relief programs that will help save children’s lives. Singer states that it would only take two hundred dollars to save a child’s life. Singer suggests that instead of spending that thousand dollars on a new fancy suit why not donate it to one of the relief programs? Just in case that is not enough proof that people are very materialistic, Singer gives the example of Bob and his Bugatti on the train tracks. As you read you learn Bob had the option between letting a train kill a small child or crushing Bob’s Bugatti (380). Bob makes the decision to let the train hit the child because he had put too much money into his Bugatti. To Bob the Bugatti was his financial security for when he decided to retire and that is why he let the train hit the small child. And that is what Peter Singer is getting at when he says that American are too caught up about all of the new shiny things that they need to have. Peter also proposes that Americans have the “follow-the-crowd ethics” (382). While he is comparing Americans who are not

In the first article, “The Obligation to Assist”, Singer believes if we as a society or as individuals can prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing something of comparable moral significance, we should always do it. He uses a metaphor to put his position into words, he explains that if he were to see a child drowning he has a moral conscious to help the child, but would he have the obligation? Relating to his metaphor, he applies this concept to people living in poverty. People continue to live in absolute poverty, although, if society lived by the aforementioned principle people would assist the poor, as poverty is bad. Therefore, we should prevent at least some poverty. Through this theory, implications can be drawn out from

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

For all of human history, wealth has governed the balance of man's power just as the absence of wealth has dictated individual and collective suffering. The central premise of the landmark 1971 piece by Peter Singer is that this sharp contrast in the human experience is implicated by consider moral obligation. Singer's piece offers an important statement of global responsibility on the part of the world's wealthiest citizens, calling for action to end the economic suffering of others.

In Pete Singer’s article, The Singer Solution to World Poverty, he describes several scenarios where people are put in a situation to choose between helping other people by giving money or giving it up over keeping it for yourself. Singer says that we shouldn’t be spending money on nonessential items but only for necessities. He also tells us that we should feel guilty for not helping or saving others and should be heading in the right direction. Finally, he says it is immoral for us to not donate money or to sacrifice something less valuable to save the lives of others. I strongly disagree with what he says and think he is overdoing it with what he says and he expects us to feel the same way on his stance which is wrong.

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

You bought those new Jordans yet? How about the new iPad? What if I told you that you could possibly save a child’s life with that money? In his September 5, 1999 New York Times Magazine article “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Peter Singer goes in on American consumerism and its connection to world poverty. He also explains how donating $200 to overseas aid organizations like UNICEF and Oxfam America is enough to “help a sickly 2-year-old transform into a healthy 6-year old.” He goes on to point out that an American household only really needs to spend $30,000 a year on basic necessities. This number remains the same regardless of income so any income above this should be donated to these

Poverty lurks within the shadow of civilization and feeds off the empty wallets of the poor. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the definition of poor is, “lacking material possessions” and “of, relating to, or characterized by poverty.” Along those lines, in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, poverty is defined as “the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions.” Therefore, I conclude that poverty is not a fact, but it is rather a concept relative to one’s own surroundings. There are individuals such as Peter Singer who disagree with my opinion. For instance, Singer believes American households making $100,000 annually should give away $70,000 in order to only have an income of $30,000

Certainly, the world presented by Singer (1972) differs considerably from the real order of things. In the real world, charity is not considered as a moral duty. Rather, it is a voluntary act of generosity, which is subject to public approval and praise. This position favors many society members, who can use charity as an instrument of manipulation to achieve their own purposes. Meanwhile, a consensus is emerging that charity is a negative phenomenon, which does not allow changing the situation from within. According to BBC (n.d.), charity deals with the symptoms, rather than causes, of poverty and famines. It