What Makes the World Go Round Professor of Bioethics, Peter Singer, explains in the article “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” that all prosperous people should give all money that is not needed for basic necessities to places that are in need of food and medicine. As an American, I have knowledge this argument would shake up America as a whole. This could create a world of giving up the Capitalistic ways of America and the economic food chain. On the other hand, it could create a world of kindness and less violence. Can you imagine giving up your freedom to help others? Evaluating Singer’s argument begins first with the Utilitarian nature of his stance, then the destruction of American Capitalism, and, finally, the freedom of the people
…show more content…
America is driven by the idea of opportunities and finding a pathway to economic success. This ideal brings more people to America with hopes to become the next Steve Jobs or CEO of a major economic empire. The plan that Singer is suggesting would take away all luxuries that are benifits of being at the top of the economic food chain. Taking away the rewards of working hard and climbing up the economic empire would engineer a new phase of complacent people. Without economic rewards, most people are discouraged to invest their time in the economy, which would make a poor American economy and global economy. The one possibly beneficial thing that this would do to the economy is eliminating social classes and making it so there is a middle ground for people from all walks of life. This would create equality throughout the economy. With this financial equality, we would be losing the Capitalist ideals that Americans value. To keep the American economy strong, there must be rewards for hard …show more content…
The freedom to prosperity is highly valued in any society because we are driven by characteristics of Natural Selection where only the best of the best survive. The best way American society has made humanitarian changes across the world is by the powerful speaking up and encouraging others to make an impact. The freedom to do this is where we find the reason that Singer’s Solution would not work. If this was normal for all prosperous people, there would not be as much attention involved, but if it is forced there will not be as much of a will to do it. This would also be a factor in raising a generation of complacent individuals. Looking through the lense of Utilitarianism, we would be achieving the best we could for the most amount of people. Which in the Utilitarianism thought Singer would be an example of the philosophy at work, but Utilitarianism is not alway perfect. The American people specifically wouldn’t necessarily benefit directly by giving money to developing nations which means that even though we would be helping many people, it would not be making a large impact. Basic necessities in developing countries are minimal, but it is the question of if the American people are willing to lose some of their freedom to help
America is driven by the idea of opportunities and finding a pathway to economic success. This ideal brings more people to America with hopes to become the next Steve Jobs or CEO of a major economic empire. The plan that Singer is suggesting would take away all luxuries that are benifits of being at the top of the economic food chain. Taking away the rewards of working hard and climbing up the economic empire would engineer a new phase of complacent people. Without economic rewards, most people are discouraged to invest their time in the economy, which would make a poor American economy and global economy. The one possibly beneficial thing that this would do to the economy is eliminating social classes and making it so there is a middle ground for people from all walks of life. This would create equality throughout the economy. With this financial equality, we would be losing the Capitalist ideals that Americans value. To keep the American economy strong, there must be rewards for hard …show more content…
The freedom to prosperity is highly valued in any society because we are driven by characteristics of Natural Selection where only the best of the best survive. The best way American society has made humanitarian changes across the world is by the powerful speaking up and encouraging others to make an impact. The freedom to do this is where we find the reason that Singer’s Solution would not work. If this was normal for all prosperous people, there would not be as much attention involved, but if it is forced there will not be as much of a will to do it. This would also be a factor in raising a generation of complacent individuals. Looking through the lense of Utilitarianism, we would be achieving the best we could for the most amount of people. Which in the Utilitarianism thought Singer would be an example of the philosophy at work, but Utilitarianism is not alway perfect. The American people specifically wouldn’t necessarily benefit directly by giving money to developing nations which means that even though we would be helping many people, it would not be making a large impact. Basic necessities in developing countries are minimal, but it is the question of if the American people are willing to lose some of their freedom to help