Singer Argument On Poverty

In this paper, I will address Singer’s argument on his belief that we are morally required to donate money to charity to save people from poverty related deaths. Many people die every day due to poverty and their deaths go unnoticed; their lives could be saved with a small donation from people who can afford to do so. Singer proposes a valid argument as well as a sound one, and therefore we ought to trust his conclusion on donating money to save people from poverty related deaths. I will break down Singer’s argument on why he believes it is both valid (truth of the premises lead to the truth of the conclusion) and sound (all premises are actually true statements). Singer’s argument begins with the first premise (1), “If you can prevent something …show more content…
The conclusion (3) of Singer’s argument is that “You ought to donate extra money to prevent poverty related deaths. Singer’s argument follows the modus ponens style (if P then Q, P, so Q), which is a valid form of an argument. Singer’s argument states “If P (you can prevent something bad from happening without giving up something of comparable moral significance) then Q (You ought to prevent the bad event), P (You can prevent something bad poverty related deaths from happening without giving up something of moral significance (insignificant sums of money)), so Q (You ought to prevent deaths from poverty and donate money).
To conclude, I have proven that Singer’s argument is valid and sound, thus we must trust his conclusion; we are morally required to donate extra money to save people from poverty related deaths. More than 3 billion people in the world live on less than $2.50 a day. The vast majority of people would agree that helping others who are in worse situations than ourselves is morally good. Singer aims to bring awareness to the fact that we can save real lives by donating money that may be insignificant to us, but mean the world to those in