Response To Singer's Analysis

In Singer’s writing, he writes that when something bad is happening that people who are in the position to help should help. Then O’Neill discusses how we should not use people for mere means and to only use people if they consent to it. I agree with O’Neill that we should only use people if they agree with it and that we should only help people in need based on how much we want to. Singer says that when people are suffering and dying from food, shelter and medical problems that people should help in every way possible. Based on statistics about poverty and the wealthy people in the world, poverty is something that can be solved. There is enough people in the world who could donate to the people in poverty that it would solve the problems of people going hungry, lack of shelter, and lack of medical care. With this, Singer believes that anyone who can donate money to people who are suffering should. Singer thinks they should give all they can until if they gave up any …show more content…
The first topic he discusses is about categorical imperative. This is about how we should only use people if they give consent and not to use people for just mere means and coercing them. Some examples of when it is okay to use people is using a mailman to receive mail or using a tutor provided by the school. Then an example of using people as mere means is plagiarizing a paper from online. Then coercing someone would be hijacking a car and forcing the driver to take them somewhere. The second topic he discusses is the duty of beneficence. This goes along with Singer’s ideas about giving to people in need except O’Neill has a different perspective on it. He thinks that when giving to people in need we only need to give however much based on our own judgement or discretion. O’Neill thinks it is okay not to give up a lot. Only the amount the person thinks is