The Peter Singer Argument

Improved Essays
The underlying goal of philosophy is to help humans seek the ultimate truth to the questions that orbit their knowledge for the meaning of existence. One question that many philosophers are challenging themselves to answer would be that of just how far individuals should go in order to provide relief for those who are suffering from poverty. After attaining a degree in bioethics, a professor by the name of Peter Singer recently ventured to provide the world with an answer to the question that had been protruding the minds of many philosophers. Singer claims, “The formula is simple: whatever money you’re spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away.” Although Singer’s argument proposes an idea that could be beneficial towards …show more content…
The argument to which Singer lays his claim would be pragmatic in an idealistic world. However, this world in which human existence thrives is far from being in a state that is unimpeded by flaws. Singer argues that those who earn enough to spend their extra money on luxuries should instead donate those funds to overseas organizations to help combat poverty. This proposal is unrealistic due to reasons that you can’t expect beings who carry faultful qualities to amend their ways without delay. Many individuals who have become accustomed to living an affluent lifestyle, will feel reluctant towards Singer’s proposal due to the fear that it will jeopardize their comfortable way of life. An example of this would be the reaction of which was displayed by a wide array of individuals upon initially being introduced to Singer’s proposal. The first …show more content…
When compared to its counterpart of donating all extra funds, the act of not donating any at all also transpires to be an argument that may be deemed impractical. If individuals were to donate their extra funds to overseas organizations, it would be the introduction to the point of time in which the world could become unified. The money donated would go towards funding new programs that would bring new opportunities for those living in poverty. For example, the extra funds could be spent on the development of an educational system. If these individuals had access to an educational system where their knowledge could progress, the possibilities of what they could do with their lives would be insurmountable when compared to not having the means to seek an education. Not only would this have a drastic effect upon the lives of each person individually, but it would also impact the country as a whole because it would open a window for opportunity. An educated country would allow for its citizens to find ways to generate tools that would let them build themselves up without needing aid from others. Countries that were once poverty-stricken would finally become self-sufficient to the same extent as the countries

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Narveson’s argument provides the difference between charity and justice. In his argument, he considers the demands of justice are enforceable to all people, while charity is not. This means that, in some instance people are forced to act with justice because it is morally permissible, though, it is not permissible at all instance to force people to be charitable since, it is not morally permissible. Narveson's argument shows that the call to charity is personal and not forced. He argues that it not be right to force people to act charitably.…

    • 562 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Peter Singer Poverty

    • 1063 Words
    • 5 Pages

    In this essay “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” Peter Singer is trying to persuade the society that the world hunger and poverty will be solved if people from wealthy society donate the money that spend on their luxuries to the aid organization. He gives two controversies examples of Dora’s situation and Bob’s situation which help to strengthen his argument. From that examples it is also supports his arguments in favor of his altruistic position. On the other hand he also address the objections to his arguments which is “fair share” and “the limit of the donation.…

    • 1063 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The moral dilemma shown here, is the same one that Singer believes occurs every time an American who already owns a TV chooses to go out and buy a new one. Instead of using this excess money to upgrade their television, they should be donating it to prevent the deaths of kids in need. Even though these two decision both have different factors to them, they both could lead to the same result. Except, in one scenario a kid dies by being sold to an organ peddler, and in the other a child dies of hunger on the street.…

    • 348 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Great Essays

    In a society where “giving food to starving kids in Africa” has become almost a cliché, utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer makes the readers of The New York Times step back and reevaluate their spending choices in his 1999 essay “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”. Through a mixture of examples and facts Singer calls upon those with excess money, typically used on luxuries, to instead donate that money for overseas aid agencies. In order to persuade the reader to follow through with his solution, he utilizes anecdotes and facts, emotional statements, and an impression to communicate the importance of donating to these agencies. At the start of the article, Singer opens with an anecdote from the movie “Central Station”.…

    • 1672 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    What is a human life worth? Some may say it is worth millions of dollars no matter what. Others might argue that a human’s worth is dependant on who they are, where they came from and what they can do. In Peter Singer’s Article “What Should a Billionaire Give?” he states that many people would be reluctant to even consider putting a fixed rate. It would be unethical to do so, however, he continues with “If we really had to, most of us would agree that the value of human life would be in the millions.”…

    • 1149 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    If Singer was truly attempting to prevent the greatest amount of human suffering for the value of the contributions that he gives to charity, it could potentially be possible that he did not take into account the suffering that he was experiencing in his life due to the heavy financial burden of making large contributions of money. Not having the capability to support yourself but helping others with large contributions can cause suffering for yourself so, the principle to prevent suffering can be used to argue against his other argument on giving money away to prevent suffering. In order to prevent suffering due to the financial burden, the best decision would be to reduce the amount of money being contributed. There have been many cases that different charities have misused money and other contributions. There also have been cases where the money have been used inefficiently.…

    • 815 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He reasons that everyone on the planet does not have an equal entitlement on the resources of others, that we are bound to a greater duty to our family and circle, who have a greater right. By providing for and ensuring happiness to our immediate needs from all others that may claim to our resources, is, in fact, a more efficient means to achieve happiness. Singer counters that although pockets within these first world nations can experience poverty relative to others within their population, these developing nations face absolute poverty, where life is plagued by hardships including death, disease, squalid living conditions and overall despair. Where industrialized nations possess a prosperity and capacity to provide assistance to third world nations, Singer suggests that a donation of one-tenth of their wage would not only lessen the destitution of their fellow man but could be achieved without cost to their own particular well-being and wealth. As this act would maximize the utility or happiness for the greatest number of world citizens and therefore have an ethical obligation to do…

    • 816 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Singer does not provide criteria to decide on what is morally comparable. Also, I will deny Singer’s conclusion that we are obligated to donate as much as we can to help end poverty. I will argue that donating to charity is supererogatory, which means that donating to charity is not obligated, but instead a positive thing to do. I will also deny his second premise which states that it is our moral responsibility to prevent bad things from happening to other people.…

    • 1246 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    What Makes the World Go Round Professor of Bioethics, Peter Singer, explains in the article “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” that all prosperous people should give all money that is not needed for basic necessities to places that are in need of food and medicine. As an American, I have knowledge this argument would shake up America as a whole. This could create a world of giving up the Capitalistic ways of America and the economic food chain. On the other hand, it could create a world of kindness and less violence. Can you imagine giving up your freedom to help others?…

    • 1058 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Everyday millions of people around the world suffer in circumstances, in which they could die from lack of proper care and resources. In Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Peter Singer acknowledges this issue facing humanity and argues for the moral obligation to give large amounts of money to those in need. Singer believes that all who are able should be giving up many, if not all of their luxuries to help give the less fortunate their necessities. I will begin by summarizing the argument that Singer dictates in his article and then explain my reasoning for believing his notions to be sound and valid.…

    • 2212 Words
    • 9 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 writes, “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it” (Singer 6). He stresses that affluent societies have no excuse to not treat ailments we have the cure for, like starvation. Alleviating these poor conditions and human suffering is the easiest way to minimize the sum total of pain, or to follow the Greatest Happiness Principle. Singer expands on how much people are expected to give and mentions the “point of marginal utility” (10). The point of marginal utility as it relates to money essentially means that after a certain point where an individual can live comfortably, any extra income will not make the individual significantly happier.…

    • 1033 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Singer advocates that an individual practice marginal utility, which is when the person giving reaches the same material level as the person who is receiving the charity (236). His claim for this follows that it would alleviate the…

    • 866 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Life You Can Save Argument

    • 1197 Words
    • 5 Pages

    One of the many arguments that Singer presents throughout his article, “The Life You Can Save”, has made Mr. Singer a preeminent and well-known philosopher. Singer claims that in not donating to human organization, those in a financial position to do so are acting immorally. Donating substantial bulk of your earnings to people that can’t meet their basic needs is a step to true happiness. Mr. Singer explains that in 2009, there was a total estimate of 10 million children under the age of 5 that died of causes to poverty, which included: contracting malaria, measles and diarrhea. Unfortunately, these children are vulnerable to all ghastly diseases, which are created from a lack of resources like clean water and basic hygiene.…

    • 1197 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Peter Singer Analysis

    • 1509 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Philosopher Peter Singer argues that there is such an obligation to the global poor and that the failure to do so is the morally equivalent to murder. To support this, he brings up the thought experiment of the drowning boy, whereas you have the opportunity to save a drowning boy in exchange for ruining your new shoes and being late to work…

    • 1509 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays