Analysis Of The Article ' The Singer Solution And World Poverty ' By Peter Singer

In a piece by Peter Singer entitled, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Singer argues that Americans should prevent atrocious situations to arise but, we also should not sacrifice something of equal importance while doing so. Moreover, in the piece by John Arthur, “World Hunger and Moral Obligation: The Case Against Singer,” Arthur disagrees with Singer; he believes that we should help the poverty-stricken but, it is not morally imperative to do so.

After reading Peter Singer’s article “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” I concluded that Singer’s solution is not adequate enough to accomplish the end of world poverty or the benefit of sick children. While multiple positive possibilities for his simple formula of “whatever money you’re spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away” (22) several negative complications with his solution are also present. If Singer’s solution was followed by every standard, he had set it would help children in poverty which is advocated by the fact that it only takes “$200 in donations would help a sickly two-year-old transform into a healthy six-year-old” (8). Unfortunately, it is against human nature to give vast amounts of money to others

In “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Peter Singer advises his pursuers about the deformities in the public eye's endeavor toward world destitution and the issues related with it through outlines using a hypothetical debate to express that people should give the majority of their pointless pay to abroad guide affiliations. Singer utilizes theoretical strategies to accomplish his goal of getting perusers to truly believe his musings and change their qualities and traditions.He uses a frustrated but yet straightforward tone in this article and shows his perspective in an enthusiastic way by giving various hypothetical illustrations. Singers purpose of the story is that it isn't right for individuals to spend their cash on unnecessary things, for example, excursions and eating out when there are kids experiencing hunger all over the world. In spite of the fact that, Singer offers an answer for neediness, his reaction bodes well sensibly however it isn't viable.

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,

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.

Bob owns a Bugatti which is described as his ultimate “pride and joy”. He has invested most of his savings into his car and hopes to sell it one day to ensure he will live comfortably after retirement. While talking a leisurely walk one day, Bob is faced with the decision to save the life of a child from a runaway train or to save his prize car from being ultimately demolished. Bob chooses to save his car. Singer continues his appeal to pathos by stating, “Bob’s conduct, most of us will immediately respond, was gravely wrong.”

Furthermore, Singer not only expects too much, but doesn’t realize luxuries and necessities mean different things to different people. Singer overwhelms the reader by stating one number to expecting a lot more. Singer fails to mention how much people struggle in America alone. Sure, it would be great to end world hunger, but what about giving to those in need in the US? According to Unicef, the United States has the second highest population of child poverty in the list of developed countries, (Unicef). Although it would be wonderful to be able to help all in need, sometimes it isn’t possible when Americans are struggling themselves to pay bills and raise their own.

The poverty level in America is significantly rising as well as those of other countries. If America’s social safety net programs are barely assisting Americans, how can they allow organizations to donate money to other countries? Yes, it’s true that the foreign countries may not have availability to certain resources, but America must solidify its foundation before helping others. If we do not, the final result will be the downfall of our own country’s well-being. On the other hand, poverty and homelessness are prevalent issues that are global. Americans fortunately have social safety net programs (welfare, unemployment, social security etc.) while other countries do not. Compared to foreign and underdeveloped countries we are more economically sound. Furthermore, Singer’s idea that “money you’re spending on luxuries, not necessities should be given away” (327) is an extreme idea, but should be weighed to see how it could benefit struggling families.

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,”

Singer in his book “The Life You Can Save” wrote that : “…when we spend our surplus on concerts or fashionable shoes, on fine dining and good wines, or on holidays in faraway lands, we are doing something wrong” (Singer, “The Life You Can Save” 18). He means that if we are spending our surplus on ourselves, on our pleasure and happiness, for us these luxuries are worth more than a child's life. Singer tries to persuade people that they should give up extra money that they have in order to help other people. He demands people to put interests of others before their own. His argument is too extreme, because it is an unrealistic that people will sacrifice their all luxuries, to which they are accustomed, to help to a

In the article Rich and Poor, Peter Singer sees extreme poverty as “not having enough income to meet the most basic human needs for adequate food, water, shelter, clothing, sanitation, health care or education” (pg. 234). Singer does not fail to compare those in extreme poverty to people who are living in absolute affluence. He suggests that it is the responsibility of those living in affluence to help those who are in need of obtaining even the basic human needs. He also argues that the affluent not helping is the moral equivalency of murder. Singer realizes that even though the rich can give to the poor these resources that they need, the rich do not feel enough of a moral mandate to do so. I disagree a bit with Singer because he seems to suggest that everyone who has the basic necessities is morally obligated to give but, I believe that this idea of a moral mandate to give should only apply to the extremely wealthy. Like Singer’s first premises says “If we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable significance, we ought to do it.” (243) If the absolute affluent have large amounts of money, they can help to at least make people live comfortably without losing anything of great significance. The increasing poverty rates, not just in America but, globally cannot be solved if the extremely wealthy continue to do wasteful spending and choose to not put their money more towards programs and charities that better the lives of the people in their

Peter Singer provides the specific number, $200, to demonstrate how reasonable it is to save a child in poverty. Additionally, he repeats, “to save a child’s life,” which demonstrates exactly what a $200 donation could do for a helpless child. As an example, Singer references a credible philosopher, Peter Unger, and acknowledges that, “by his calculation, $200 in donations would help a sickly 2-year-old transform into a healthy 6-year-old.” Next, he establishes that, “if you were to give up dining out just for one month, you would easily save that amount.” Singer emphasises this to show the reader how simple it is to save $200, and, more importantly, save a child’s life. By repeating this number multiple times, following with, “to save a child’s life,” throughout his essay, Singer implies a reasonable yet urgent tone in order to convince the reader that if they donate, they will save a

America’s economy must be a priority to Americans when it comes to solving the issues of world poverty. Utilitarian philosophers, like Peter Singer, judge whether acts are right or wrong by their consequences. Singer’s solution did not seem to take into account the long term consequences this would have on the American economy. According to Bussinessweek.com, consumer

Peter Singer’s central idea focuses around how grim death and suffering from lack of food, shelter and medical care really is. He further argues that if we can prevent something this unfortunate from happening, without sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought to do it. In other words, as privileged citizens, we ought to prevent all of the death and suffering that we can from lack of food, shelter and medical care from happening by giving our money and resources to charity (Chao, 2016, in-class discussion). In the terms of this argument, death and suffering from poverty are preventable with the

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.