The news article “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” and the Buddhist jataka “The Perfect Generosity of Prince Vessantara,” both extrapolate on giving and how to give well. This concept is extremely hard to explain especially in light of Buddhist tradition. Both authors try their best to elaborate on the concept of giving, Singer talks about the moral obligation to give and the story about Vessantara talks about giving everything you have. However, these stories do not necessarily teach others the most perfect form of giving, Dana, or giving without expecting anything in return. The author who comes closest to this concept is Peter Singer because the guilt he uses to compel his readers is more easily dissipated than the joy Vessantara
…show more content…
Peter Singer believes that everyone should give because not giving your extra income is not holding to morals like not killing people, and being humanitarians. Singer argues in his article that every person who makes over $30,000 a year, just enough to live on, need to donate the surplus of their salary to an organization like UNICEF. The author even goes so far as to put a direct call to action in his text and provide the organization’s phone number. Early in the article, Singer compares a story from the Brazilian film, “Central Station,” about a woman who essentially sells a homeless boy to people who want to harvest his organs, even though she thought he was going to be adopted and a story about Bob and his new Bugatti, a switch for a train, and the life of a child. Singer brings these stories up to procure a feeling of revulsion form his audience but then turns around and makes his audience realize that they essentially are causing children to die as well by participating in the capitalist society they live in (Singer, 1). His article is an attack against the consumer way of life in America. It is important to note that Singer is an act utilitarian which means that he believes that one should always act in the interests of the greatest number’s happiness. Happiness in this sense is the least pain and the most pleasure. He also describes himself as a “utilitarian philosopher,” or “one who judges whether acts are right or wrong by their consequences,” (Singer, 1). So if one buys a new shirt or takes their family out to dinner instead of eating at home, in Singer’s eyes you are directly responsible for the child who dies of starvation across the ocean. Though this point is a bit extreme, he makes a good point,
Peter Singer believes that everyone should give because not giving your extra income is not holding to morals like not killing people, and being humanitarians. Singer argues in his article that every person who makes over $30,000 a year, just enough to live on, need to donate the surplus of their salary to an organization like UNICEF. The author even goes so far as to put a direct call to action in his text and provide the organization’s phone number. Early in the article, Singer compares a story from the Brazilian film, “Central Station,” about a woman who essentially sells a homeless boy to people who want to harvest his organs, even though she thought he was going to be adopted and a story about Bob and his new Bugatti, a switch for a train, and the life of a child. Singer brings these stories up to procure a feeling of revulsion form his audience but then turns around and makes his audience realize that they essentially are causing children to die as well by participating in the capitalist society they live in (Singer, 1). His article is an attack against the consumer way of life in America. It is important to note that Singer is an act utilitarian which means that he believes that one should always act in the interests of the greatest number’s happiness. Happiness in this sense is the least pain and the most pleasure. He also describes himself as a “utilitarian philosopher,” or “one who judges whether acts are right or wrong by their consequences,” (Singer, 1). So if one buys a new shirt or takes their family out to dinner instead of eating at home, in Singer’s eyes you are directly responsible for the child who dies of starvation across the ocean. Though this point is a bit extreme, he makes a good point,