Your chest is pounding, you teeter on the verge of hyperventilation and your mind is racing, playing back with incredibly vivid accuracy your last few memories before you heard your daughter scream. You try desperately to understand how this standoff happened. You know that if you drop the gun, he may kill both you and your daughter and run off with your money.
He presents two hypothetical situations to support his argument. Singer uses these two situations as analogies to the choices Americans could make. He believes that if we can prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we ought to do so.
Therefore, he wants Americans to donate money to organizations overseas for the needy by not spending that money on personal luxuries. He showed that this amount of money could truly save a life and I believe it would be hard to find someone who would object to giving this relatively small amount of money if it meant saving a life.
However, Singer ended his argument in wanting everyone to donate every cent of his or her extra money to charity. This is a large demand that does not convince people to want to donate their money. At least for me, as much as I care for others who need financial aid, I would not be willing to give all my extra wealth away, especially if I earned that extra wealth.
What made this specific argument weak was that Singer did not provide any real persuasion as to why we should be giving all our surplus wealth away. Everyone has a different perspective on what he or she considers something to be a luxury or necessity.
Also, everyone has the right to control his or her own wealth. Many organizations take in some of the money for administrative costs, and etcetera.
Nowadays, technology shares a huge portion of our expenditures, but since technology that makes our lives easier and more convenient is considered a luxury, will there be any need to have these technologies anymore when we can only afford necessities for ourselves?
Will even more poverty arise from their power?
People are always striving to earn more money so they can afford beyond their necessities, but there may be a lack of motivation to strive for better if they know what they are working for will only be shared by others. At the end, this will backfire the entire plan when nobody has surplus wealth.
How much would you be willing to sacrifice for the survival of another, particularly a stranger? Singer uses utilitarian philosophy to reduce our arguments for not donating to the bare structure.
Dora sells a boy for his organs and because the boy is in such close contact with her, she cannot bear the guilt and is remorseful. Bob, on the other had, invests in a Bugatti and lets the train run over a boy instead of his car.
While everyone can agree it was wrong, he did what he did because of the fact that he did not have close contact with the boy and could easily ignore him. It is analogous to how the hundreds of millions capable of donating dollars to charity and saving the children from the organ harvesters and phantom, unmanned trains of the world.
Bob and the average reader are in the same category. In another point he makes, Bob would only lose his car, as opposed to a limb.
We only have to pay dollars notdollars. In all seriousness Singer had a very legitimate argument. The western world has the surplus funds and resources to end the atrocities of the world and bridge the prosperity gap. So why is there hunger, poverty, and human misery in this day and age? According to Singer, and me, its because no one is in direct contact with what they have the potential to change.
No one is picking up a boy and selling him directly. No one is saving their Bugatti in this side of the world. We are the hoarders and forgoing our luxury is out of the question for many of us.
He asks that people donate money to charity and for as little as two hundred dollars, you could be saving someones life. The situation he presents shows the different opinions of human beings and although this is a good example, it is not that simple.
Financially speaking, many people can not afford to live as comfortably as they would probably like. There is always a struggle and a feeling of needing more money and to be able to give away money that is earned and worked hard for is a difficult decision for most. I feel that poverty, hunger, and even homelessness are ongoing problems that will never be solved.
There are other ways to contribute to charity other than money and I feel that only people who have experienced these kinds of problems before are willing to help.
Singer states that people should only spend money on necessities however I feel that there is a fine line between luxuries and necessities. I think asking for money is a tricky question.Sep 05, · “Singer’s Solution to World Poverty” In his essay “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer claims that the solution to world poverty is for Americans to donate all income not required for necessities to overseas aid organizations.
The Philanthro Crystal Ball worked pretty well last year. What is our oracle predicting for in the world of philanthrocapitalism? CRSPR, ISIS, Data for Good & Refugees This year, we expect to see leading philanthrocapitalist thinkers wrestle with the implications for society of the powerful new gene editing technology, CRSPR; with what the private sector can do to beat terrorist threats.
Sep 05, · the singer solution to world poverty**Essay by Peter Singer, Australian philosopher, offers his unconventional thoughts about ordinary American's obligations to world's poor and suggests that even. The Solution to World Poverty* PETER SINGER *From "The Singer Solution to World Poverty." The New York Times Magazine ().
Using a number of examples to make his case, Peter Singer argues that whatever money we are spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away. online paid assignments.
essay on dead poets society. sales of billion euros ($ billion) for itsfiscal year to June 30, up percent and in line.
The Brexit disaster that was inflicted on an unsuspecting world last week will undermine the prospects for an already weak global economy and have a particularly harsh impact on Australia.