In Peter Singer’s essay, “The Solution to World Poverty”, he attempts to convince the audience, through hypothetical examples and his philosophical background, that much more could be done by individuals to end world poverty. Because Singer’s arguments for saving children’s lives come from a perspective of morality and desire to contribute to the greater good of the world, it is hard to refute. For this reason, I agree with Singer on his perspective that Americans should give more, which I was convinced by through his hypothetical examples of Dora, Bob and the breakdown of incomes and how it could be recirculated to help others in need.
Singer starts with the example of Dora, who was told to bring a boy to a location for $1,000. She does so …show more content…
With that being said, however, his logic and moral reasoning make sense. If Americans want to maximize the amount of lives that can be saved, they should donate all of what they do not need for their own survival. Singer states that for incomes at $50,000 a year, since only $30,000 is needed for necessities for the family, $20,000 should be donated. While that is nearly half of the family income, the family will still have the resources to buy the things they need to live. Arguably, the other $20,000 would be used for luxuries, which could help save many lives. While I do believe that it is unlikely that most American families would actually do just that, I do understand the reasoning, logic and morality for Singer’s claims. As he states in reflecting on the examples of Bob and Dora, their experiences are not rare or unlucky, “We are all in this situation” (Singer 373). Essentially, we all have the power to contribute to help save lives, it is our choice to live a luxurious life instead.
Overall, I agree with Peter Singer that Americans could do much more to contribute to the greater good. Singer’s use of moral reasoning and logic in his hypothetical examples of Dora and Bob, along with his breakdown of what an American family needs to make in order to take care of their needs, was able to convince me of this position. We only need a certain amount of resources to survive ourselves, so whatever extra we have should be given to help save others in
Singer starts with the example of Dora, who was told to bring a boy to a location for $1,000. She does so …show more content…
With that being said, however, his logic and moral reasoning make sense. If Americans want to maximize the amount of lives that can be saved, they should donate all of what they do not need for their own survival. Singer states that for incomes at $50,000 a year, since only $30,000 is needed for necessities for the family, $20,000 should be donated. While that is nearly half of the family income, the family will still have the resources to buy the things they need to live. Arguably, the other $20,000 would be used for luxuries, which could help save many lives. While I do believe that it is unlikely that most American families would actually do just that, I do understand the reasoning, logic and morality for Singer’s claims. As he states in reflecting on the examples of Bob and Dora, their experiences are not rare or unlucky, “We are all in this situation” (Singer 373). Essentially, we all have the power to contribute to help save lives, it is our choice to live a luxurious life instead.
Overall, I agree with Peter Singer that Americans could do much more to contribute to the greater good. Singer’s use of moral reasoning and logic in his hypothetical examples of Dora and Bob, along with his breakdown of what an American family needs to make in order to take care of their needs, was able to convince me of this position. We only need a certain amount of resources to survive ourselves, so whatever extra we have should be given to help save others in