The Life You Can Save Rhetorical Analysis

1109 Words 5 Pages
Libertarian vs. Utilitarian Argument In chapter 3 of, The Life You Can Save, by Peter Singer, there are many different libertarian arguments against giving a large sum of a household income to 3rd world nations. These arguments are mainly given by students because of a study given by Scott Seider. Scott Seider was “researching how adolescents think about obligations to others” (Singer 25). The results from the research show that the students do not agree with the utilitarian ideas suggested by Singer. In chapter 3 of, The Life You Can Save, students raised political, economic, and moral objections against the utilitarian idea of the obligation to give. Peter Singer then addressed each of these concerns in the chapter. Some of the objections expressed by the students came from a political point of view. On page 33 of the text, one student …show more content…
I believe that we have an obligation to give to the poor and that we should give to those that need it most. The reason why I believe in the obligation to give to the poor comes from church and the Bible. The money that I make is God’s money so I spend my money in a way to glorify God. Proverbs 28:27 says, “the one who gives to the poor will not be in need, but one who turns his eyes away will receives many curses”. Giving money and time to help the poor is very rewarding and according to the Bible it is the only way to live a fulfilling life. From chapter 8 of, The Most Good You Can Do, by Peter Singer he talks about how people are happier when they are spending money on others instead of themselves. This is also a reason why I agree with the utilitarian idea. I have experience volunteering and giving money to organizations that help the poor and I do believe that it is one of the most rewarding thing you can do. I agree with Peter Singer and the utilitarian idea that we as humans do have an obligation to

Related Documents