Peter Singer argues that most people will think that Bob’s action is unhuman and wrong than he remind us that we also have the opportunities to save children around the world from dying through organization such UNICEF or Oxfam America etc. By comparison, Singers states “…Bob’s situation resembles that of people able but unwilling to donate to oversea aid….”(203) Since the result of Bob not throwing the switch is that the child died, that can be said the same to the people not donating to help poor children results in children dying. In other word, Singers believes that if we think everything is wrong when it is involving children death then it is also wrong for not donating to the charities because it also leads to children’s death. Singer also provides a calculation and information on how much we need to donate in order to save a 2 year-old child.…
What duty do we have to help those who might otherwise starve without our intervention? Is it our responsibility to help our fellow man in need or are we free to stand on the sidelines? Philosophers Jan Narveson and Peter Singer offer contrasting viewpoints on the moral obligations affluent nations have to aid and support the poor. Where Singer reasons that by having the privilege of living in nations of wealth, this benefit carries with it the moral obligation to help those around the world who are sentenced to live in absolute poverty, if only because of where fate had them born. In response, Narveson argues Singer is mistaken: our responsibility and duty first lies to our circle and we should never insist that others take the responsibility…
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.…
Personal finance is never taught in schools, and most poor parents never had it taught to them. Then the following generation has the same lack of financial knowledge as their parents and the financial inexperience continues. The rich educate themselves but without intervention, the lower class cannot escape the cycle of poverty. He doesn’t just call on the government for change though, but challenges the individual to help and take on a “village mentality.”…
He also believes that if Americans use that money for the less fortunate in other countries we can stop world poverty. The importance of this article is that he provides a different aspect on something that we have to witness every day. Singer’s audience is Americans who are not considered to be poor. Singer provides a logical solution to freeing the world of poverty but he doesn’t include the ways to why people of the world will not agree with this logic, and he doesn’t take any consideration of the thoughts of others and their money and the future consequences.…
Singer also states that it is easy for us to not donate money because we are fixated on the fact that other people are not doing it so why should I mentality. He shatters this mentality when he adds on to Bobs scenario. He says “suppose that there were more owners of priceless vintage cars —Carol, Dave, Emma, Fred and so on, down to Ziggy— all in exactly the same situation as Bob, with their own siding and their own switch, all sacrificing the child in order to preserve their own cherished car” (Singer 1). He than questions whether it changes how we see what Bob did in to being morally right.…
There are many protestations to Singer’s opinion that; we have moral obligations to contribute for the prevention of poverty. Such efforts to deny our moral obligation to the world’s poor originate from various ethical positions. Two of such objections are as follows: The first objection has consequential logic, however its conclusion is different. It states that by preventing poverty now, it may lead to more suffering in the future, so we should implement a triage policy - providing help according to the urgency of need of care - in order to lessen the usage of resources which inevitably will be need in the future (Campbell et al,…
Singer failed to consider why people work so hard. While it is in good spirit to give to the needy and homeless, it is also in good spirit to enjoy the fruit of one’s labor. And if the needy and homeless people, who are capable of getting a job and improving their condition, would try better and do what they need to do, then the number of people on the street will reduce…
In this section I will outline Singer’s argument. Singer’s first premise states that any suffering stemming from poverty is morally wrong. This suffering can include suffering from not enough food, poor living conditions, or a lack of proper medical care. His second premise describes that it is our moral…
When I came crying back to the window of my mom’s car begging to go home I realized that the worthless penny meant everything to my parents. The poverty people face as children affect their own personal morals which they impart to others. This can be…
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…
Singer argues that if we could save the kid from drowning with little inconvenience, it would be wrong not to save the child. Singer believes this situation is like giving to the poor. Singer states that “if for the cost of a pair of shoes we can contribute to a health program in a developing country that stands a good chance of saving the life of a child, we ought to do so” (Singer 7). If everybody gave a small amount, we would be able to help support developing programs to help poor countries. Singer drowning child argument and Hardin lifeboat argument have overlaps.…
Our brain create a sense that poverty cannot be fixed and the poor lives do not matter. There are two speakers, Jessica Jackley and Gary Haugen, who are talking in their Ted Talks about the destruction caused by poverty and how, we the people, can do something to fix it. Jessica Jackley, in her Ted Talk “ Poverty, money -- and love”, talks about how an…
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.”…
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.…