“The Singer Solution to World Poverty” is an article that written by Peter Singer in the New York Times Sunday magazine in 1999. It is about some people in America who spend their money by buying not necessary things. On the other hand, there are many people need of the most essential needs of human. The author encourages the rich people to allocate a fraction of their money to donate to the poor people. Singer highlights for two examples of these kind of persons whose spend their money on the secondary things.…
I agree with the comment that Peter Singer’s argument that individuals should donate to alleviate poverty and save lives does not address the underlying structural socioeconomic causes of poverty. His argument for a redistribution of wealth on an individual basis still operates under an economic system where there is an unequal distribution of wealth. As a result, even if individuals donate money, poorer countries will always be reliant on these wealthier countries and individuals for survival resulting in an increased power imbalance. However, I also think that it is important not to disregard these contributions to people in poverty simply because they do not fix the system, as these contributions do have the power to save and improve lives…
Imagine you have just picked up your paycheck from the office. As soon as you leave the office, all you can think of is paying your bills and spending the rest on items you fancy. Perhaps you wish to buy a new TV, or a new pair of shoes, or a watch that everyone already seems to have except you. On your way to cash it, you stop by a café and a little boy asks you for money to eat. You tell him that you have no spare change (you used a credit card) but you decide to buy him some food so he can eat. Having helped this boy helps you feel like you did the correct thing, and many would argue you did. However, Peter Singer…
Peter Singer’s essay The Singer Solution in World Poverty gives his opinion on how he thinks people should live in order to end world poverty. Within the country we live in people’s income have a wide spread range. A family with an income of $50,000 spends around $30,000 annually on necessities. With $20,000 left in remaining Singer believes that as much as possible should be given away to end world poverty. The luxuries that people spend money on is what is doomed as selfish.…
I was first introduced to Peter Singer’s idea of altruistic poverty at Governor’s School. It suggests that to achieve social and economic equality, individuals have to give away all they have until they reach the poverty line. While trying to wrap my mind around this questionable solution to such a complex issue, I realize that my previous way of thinking had been so egocentric. If I gave everything unnecessary for my survival what would my life look like? However, as this idea unveiled my own inadequacies as an altruistic individual, I began to wonder why capitalism does not encourage this altruism from all economic classes.…
Have you ever thought that you are happier than many children in the world? On the other hand, they do not have enough good conditions to live and develop themselves, including poverty. How will they struggle for their lives with their small hands? They probably need our help to rescue them out of danger. “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, which is written by Peter Singer, is a solution to save children's lives. Singer persuades the reader to participate in helping children who lack food, get many diseases, and do not have good living conditions. His argument is that all of us should contribute to saving the children’s lives According to “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, this solution totally has the ability to be done by our help; however, I am not completely persuaded that I will help children by following Single’s solution.…
Peter Singer thinks we are too selfish with our money. In “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, he proposes a solution to poverty in other countries. Singer believes that money that might otherwise be used for luxury goods should be donated to charities that help save lives in poorer countries. He believes that this decision increase overall happiness more than the purchase of a luxury good, like new shoes, would. While Singer’s argument raises an important moral point, it leads to a very dangerous moral precedent that could leave the problem worse off than before. Singer’s argument should be taken in a limited scope to help determine right action; otherwise, it becomes a radical doctrine.…
He feels that have a moral obligation to help people who are suffering no matter how far away from us they are. Singer feels that the rich and the affluence have a predetermined obligation to help the poor and needy, because they already have so much. He also argues that human’s persecute of luxury over the idea of evenly distributing the basic necessities of life for everyone is just plain wrong. He defends this argument when he states, “A person who has a super abundance has obligation to the poor”. (Singer,…
Peter Singer brings to light a very important global problem, poverty, and offers an extreme solution to solve this problem. Peter Singer argues that the solution to world poverty is living simply and giving all excess household money to charities. Singer uses effective examples to get his point across, but gives an unreasonable solution. He gives the example that the failure to donate money will directly result in the death of children in need. "Whatever money you're spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away." (Singer)…
Today, all around the world there are countries that are so underfunded which cause a number of issues for the people and city. Peter Singer believes the human race is liable for this poverty, to an extent, and we as a whole are not doing enough to help out and get these countries out of poverty. He has a plan so unrealistic for us to obtain that it’s almost silly to change our mindset about it and try to make a change. His ideas require everyone to work much harder than they already are to make the poverty go away. There is one man, John Arthur who I side with, that disagrees with Singer’s ideas as he presents flaws in Singer’s plan, and simpler ideas. I will speak of both men and their ideas, then give input on to which I find more reasonable.…
I, as a senior at Rutgers University, am one of hundreds of millions of people who could devote a substantial quantity of less money on things that do not boost any effectiveness but my own. For the equivalent quantity of money I spend on an iClicker, I could provide a family in Zimbabwe access to the basic necessities of life. Singer argues we have widespread obligations to the world's poor, but we can meet them without being deprived of all of our worldly assets and possessions. This essay aims to defend Singer's arguments that we, fitting a picture of absolute affluence, have a moral obligation to help those in poverty.…
In the article, "Famine, Affluence, and Morality," by Peter Singer, he is addressing the subject of charity, morality in general, and giving us a different insight in the thoughts about famine relief. Singer points out some interesting things in his article. I do agree that people, espeically the rich, should do more than what most of them actually do. This paper will explain Singer 's goal, his counter arguments, his concept of marginal utility, and the ideas of charity and duty.…
All over the world, disparities between the rich and poor, even in the wealthiest of nations is rising sharply. Fewer people are becoming increasingly “successful” and wealthy while a disproportionately larger population is also becoming even poorer. There are many issues involved when looking at poverty. It is not simply enough (or correct) to say that the poor are poor due to their own (or their government’s) bad governance and management. In fact, you could quite easily conclude that the poor are poor because the rich are rich and have the power to enforce trade agreements, which favor their interests more than the poorer nations. The book, The Bonfire of the Vanities by Tom Wolfe, illustrates clearly…
In his ground-breaking essay on the effects of wealth and poverty on global society, Peter Singer juxtaposes the responsibility of the wealthy toward the less fortunate. Singer starts off by giving contrasting examples to the abject and severe poverty of third world countries and examples of the richer nations of the world. It is Singer’s assumption that the richer nations have a duty to help the poorer nations to develop into self sufficient societies. Singer goes on toe assert, that with the right assistance and the right guidance that even those on the lower levels of the economic totem pole can rise out of poverty. The gap between rich and poor is seen on an everyday basis on a local level, but becomes more pronounced as the richer nations are compared to the poorer ones. One of the prime examples of how the more advanced nations tend to have different values that the poorer ones is how the British government spent millions of dollars on developing supersonic transport but spent very little to assist third world countries in feeding refugees and the victims of natural disasters.…
Giving your money to the poor or to charity organizations may sound easy enough, but in practice it is basically impossible. Peter Singer, in his recent NY Times article, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” argues that the rich should donate whatever luxuries and whatever money they don’t’ need all to the less prosperous. Many would argue both for and against such a viewpoint, and such a “solution” would require evaluation of its pros and cons before application.…
