The Australian philosopher Peter Singer, believes that when we refuse to help end world hunger, we become murders. He believes that it is are moral obligation as Americans who live comfortable lives, to help “the worlds poor” (Singer 1). It is wrong to continue to live a luxurious life, when we know that others are fighting for the mere chance to survive. In Peter Singer’s “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” he compares us Americans to two fictitious characters Dora and Bob, due to the fact that we, as Dora and Bob, chose luxuries over the chance to help people suffering from life-threatening poverty. Peter Singer compares us to a fictitious character from a Brazilian film called “Central Stations.” He believes that our actions are identical
…show more content…
He equates Bobs action of letting the train run over a little boy in order to save his “valuable old car, a Bugatti” (Singer 1), to us “having [the] opportunities to save the lives of children” (Singer 1) and not doing it. Bob allowed the little boy to get run over by the train when he had the chance to put his Bugatti in front of the train in order to save the little boys life. Peter Singer understands that most of us would agree that Bobs action was morally wrong, but Singer is quick to connect us to Bob. He elaborates on the similarities between us Americans and the fictitious character, Bob. He says that Bob was able to look away from what happened to the boy because the boy “was a complete stranger to him and too far away to relate to in an intimate, personal way” (Singer 1). All the children suffering are no where near us. It is easy for us to silence their pleas because we do not hear them just as Bob was able to let the boy die because he did not look into his …show more content…
He informs us that “$200 in donations would help a sickly 2-year-old transform into a healthy 6-year-old —offering safe passage through childhood's most dangerous years” (Singer 1). He reminds us that the difference between Bob and Dora is that, unlike Bob, Dora was able to look into the child’s eyes and see what she was doing. Now, with the information that is provided to us through Peter Singers essay, we become more like Dora. We now understand what is needed in order to save lives but if we still overlook those numbers. We do become murders. 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. Peter Singer compares it to us not excusing the Germans for allowing the Nazis to annihilate the Jews because others were doing the same. He holds true that diffusing the responsibility to help resolve the worlds poverty because others
He equates Bobs action of letting the train run over a little boy in order to save his “valuable old car, a Bugatti” (Singer 1), to us “having [the] opportunities to save the lives of children” (Singer 1) and not doing it. Bob allowed the little boy to get run over by the train when he had the chance to put his Bugatti in front of the train in order to save the little boys life. Peter Singer understands that most of us would agree that Bobs action was morally wrong, but Singer is quick to connect us to Bob. He elaborates on the similarities between us Americans and the fictitious character, Bob. He says that Bob was able to look away from what happened to the boy because the boy “was a complete stranger to him and too far away to relate to in an intimate, personal way” (Singer 1). All the children suffering are no where near us. It is easy for us to silence their pleas because we do not hear them just as Bob was able to let the boy die because he did not look into his …show more content…
He informs us that “$200 in donations would help a sickly 2-year-old transform into a healthy 6-year-old —offering safe passage through childhood's most dangerous years” (Singer 1). He reminds us that the difference between Bob and Dora is that, unlike Bob, Dora was able to look into the child’s eyes and see what she was doing. Now, with the information that is provided to us through Peter Singers essay, we become more like Dora. We now understand what is needed in order to save lives but if we still overlook those numbers. We do become murders. 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. Peter Singer compares it to us not excusing the Germans for allowing the Nazis to annihilate the Jews because others were doing the same. He holds true that diffusing the responsibility to help resolve the worlds poverty because others