Comparing Singer And Marginal Inequality

Decent Essays
Singer does not take into account the proximity of how close people in need are He also does not take into account one’s own self interest or comfort. People do not have to be in our society for us to be obligated to help them. The starving child in Africa is just as much as our responsibility as the inner city kids in Richmond.

He states that we ought to give as much as possible even to the point of it causing us and our dependents some suffering. He said to give even to the point of marginal utility. Singer writes of marginal utility as “at which by giving more one would cause oneself and one’s dependents as much suffering as one would prevent in Bengal.” (Giving to refuges from Bengal was an example he gave.)
He started off with assuming

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Peter Singer Poverty

    • 1063 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Peter Singer argues that most people will think that Bob’s action is unhuman and wrong than he remind us that we also have the opportunities to save children around the world from dying through organization such UNICEF or Oxfam America etc. By comparison, Singers states “…Bob’s situation resembles that of people able but unwilling to donate to oversea aid….”(203) Since the result of Bob not throwing the switch is that the child died, that can be said the same to the people not donating to help poor children results in children dying. In other word, Singers believes that if we think everything is wrong when it is involving children death then it is also wrong for not donating to the charities because it also leads to children’s death. Singer also provides a calculation and information on how much we need to donate in order to save a 2 year-old child.…

    • 1063 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Singer contends that we generally have an ethical obligation and duty to help those at risk, and spare them wherever possible. Narveson believes that while it is noble to help another person on the off chance that it bears the little cost to ourselves, this isn't required for us to be…

    • 816 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    There are many protestations to Singer’s opinion that; we have moral obligations to contribute for the prevention of poverty. Such efforts to deny our moral obligation to the world’s poor originate from various ethical positions. Two of such objections are as follows: The first objection has consequential logic, however its conclusion is different. It states that by preventing poverty now, it may lead to more suffering in the future, so we should implement a triage policy - providing help according to the urgency of need of care - in order to lessen the usage of resources which inevitably will be need in the future (Campbell et al,…

    • 664 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Singer failed to consider why people work so hard. While it is in good spirit to give to the needy and homeless, it is also in good spirit to enjoy the fruit of one’s labor. And if the needy and homeless people, who are capable of getting a job and improving their condition, would try better and do what they need to do, then the number of people on the street will reduce…

    • 755 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Peter Singer Famine

    • 1735 Words
    • 7 Pages

    An individual who donates money to a charitable organization, often will not directly see the results of their donation that are given to hungry children on different continents. This affects the obligation that an individual will feel towards the less unfortunate, as they feel less connected and concerned about those suffering many miles away from them. Peter Singer, in his essay “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” criticizes the effects that distances can have on an individual’s charitable donations. Singer argues that just because we can see one individual suffering in front of us does not mean that one “ought to help him rather than another who happens to be further away” (Singer, 405). To Singer, it makes no moral difference whether one decides to help a child in their town or a child in South Sudan.…

    • 1735 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Singer has argued that non-persons (both human and non-human) are replaceable, that is, we can kill them if we bring another similar being into existence to compensate for the net loss of utility in the universe. This, known as the replaceability argument, is Singer's most controversial argument, and has been used to justify the practice of animal husbandry when the animals live lives worth living. Singer's position rests on three primary assumptions, two axiological and one metaphysical. First, the axiological presumptions are that death, at least in the case of non-persons, does not have negative value; and that coming into existence has, if the life is worth living, positive value. Additionally, Singer accepts the Total View.…

    • 493 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    In this section I will outline Singer’s argument. Singer’s first premise states that any suffering stemming from poverty is morally wrong. This suffering can include suffering from not enough food, poor living conditions, or a lack of proper medical care. His second premise describes that it is our moral…

    • 1246 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Singer sets the stage for his argument by his first premise, which he believes most would agree too, that human suffering and death due to a deficiency of food, shelter, and medical aide are bad (231). Secondly, he states that if it is in one’s power to prevent something bad from happening, without having to sacrifice anything of equal moral importance, we morally ought to do it. He implies that…

    • 1497 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    He does this first by presenting a drowning child situation that attempts to convince people to agree with his main moral principle that people are morally obligated to prevent bad things from happening that would not result in a loss of something of equal moral value. Singer claims that should a person agree that one is morally obligated to save a drowning child with the cost of dirtying their clothes, they therefore must also agree to donate their surplus of money until they themselves are in poverty, because doing so would not risk anything of equal moral value. Contrary to Singer’s argument, one might still be able to agree with his main moral principle without donating all of their money to help prevent poverty. It follows logically this main moral principle is equally applicable to other issues such as the environment, as the degradation of the environment is another bad thing that is preventable to the same extent as poverty. With critical analyzes of Singer’s argument, it may be concluded that one may consistently agree with the initial premises of Singer’s argument without agreement to his conclusion of morally obligatory…

    • 1478 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He introduces his idea by telling readers about a film called Central Station where a woman named Dora can possibly make one thousand dollars by delivering a homeless boy (who is nine years old) to a designated home. Dora doesn't find out the boy was being taken to be killed and have his organs donated until she leaves him, however, she decided to deal with the consequences and rescue the boy from death. Singer relates this to many situations; he compares it to Americans who waste money on things such as upgrading to the latest in technology. He also gives an example where a man has to pick between killing a boy he never met or crashing into his beloved car that’s worth thousands of dollars. The man picked saving his car; and Singer says that people do this every day when they decide to spend their extra money on the finer things rather than making a donation, meaning that people who don't donate don't value a life.…

    • 846 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Peter Singer Analysis

    • 1509 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Bogging down the argument in the selfish aspects of the individual, who at most if they do work to combat global suffering is minimally affected detracts from the severity of the problem that is being addressed. What is important is the suffering the absolute poor face, and if the justification to help them is not helping them is murder, then what justification would exist? Singer’s justification still is not enough to truly compel most people into acting, and if the possibility of being a murderer is not enough then no other justification would be either, and any other would be even less compelling. Hence, it is better to assume Peter’s assertion is the case and convince more people to act. Or on a micro-level, is it not better to take Singer at face value and save lives, or at worst Singer be wrong and have still saved…

    • 1509 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Peter Singer ultimately believes that we are morally obligated to help those who need help and are suffering. He provides various arguments that support his belief that everyone should help the dying people of East Bengal. He starts off by assuming one thing, “suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad.” This assumption serves as a foundation for his many claims since it provides a definition for what he considers bad. Furthermore, his first claim is that we are morally obligated to stop bad things from happening only if we do not have to sacrifice something of equal value.…

    • 2138 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Both use their hypothetical situation to support their claim about giving to the poor. However, Hardin uses the lifeboat analogy to state that giving to the poor is a handout that would damage us in the long run. Hardin believes it is not our social responsibility to help others, and in fact we have a responsibility to be selfish to a point. Singer believes that if everybody gives a small amount, the cost of developing good programs for the poor would benefit everybody and that we have a social responsibility to help the poor. Singer believes giving a small amount would not affect us that much, as oppose to Hardin who believes it is a determinant to the…

    • 817 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Does that have any meaning, though, if the end result - people’s lives being saved - is the same? Like mentioned prior, some of the people in the world have no other option. Whether it is a morally correct thing for one to donate when considering their motives, is not something that would cross the minds of those who are living in extreme poverty where those around them are dying and they are simply waiting their turn. Singer states that philanthropists such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are donating large sums of money towards solutions to global poverty, not due to motivations of personal divine salvation, but rather more likely out of a sense of duty. So the motivations of those who donate should simply be to better the state of his fellow man, but as well as if there were a government mandated requirement to donate then that would remove the question of if it 's their personal motives or not out of the question…

    • 1149 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    We are humans and have good in ourselves, humans are to act as well mean, and not as inhumane this is what make us humans. Mother Teresa echoes, “Give, but give until it hurts.” She has similar principle to Singer’s principle, which is if it’s in our hands to prevent something happening without sacrificing anything of comparable morale significate, then we ought to do…

    • 1410 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays