Peter Singer, an Australian philosopher and professor at Princeton University asks his students the simple question of whether they would save a drowning child from a pond, while wearing they’re bran new pair of expensive shoes. The response was aggressive and passive “How could anyone consider a pair of shoes, or missing an hour or two at work, a good reason for not saving a child’s life?” ¹ Singer continued to argue that “ according to UNICEF, nearly 10 million children under five years old die each year from causes related to poverty.” ² Is not saving a child drowning in a pond right in front of you the same thing as a child half way across the world dying in poverty? Peter Singer’s response would be a big yes, he explains his way of thinking in his book “The Life you can Save” it is like the ten commandment of how to end world poverty.
In Singer’s third chapter of his book he goes on to show us the common objections to giving. The opinion that I felt was the strongest argument was Lucy’s from Glennview High, “ If someone wants to buy a new car, they should. If someone wants to redecorate their house, they should, and if they need a suit, get it. They work for their money and they have the right to spend it on themselves.” ³
The Australian Philosopher reciprocated with three main arguments. First off that when one is born in a already developed country, it doesn't matter how hard you worked to get where you are, you are lucky to have been born into a well balanced environment. “ The social and economic circumstances make it possible for you to live comfortably and able you to work and have the right abilities.” ⁴ Where as if you had ended up poor no matter how hard you worked the chances of going higher in life weaken. Take North America for example, Growing up in a society with good conditions, banking systems, police force to protect communities and a reliable power supply is all a part of how one person gets to the top of the ladder. Without these...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document