If Dora in fact did not at least try to get the child back or locate it, then in every moral situation she would be wrong. In the end he chooses his beloved car over the innocent boy. Singer uses these two situations as analogies to the choices Americans could make.
He constantly repeats that we should stop purchasing luxury items and donate our spare money to charity. I also believe that the more one earns is more they should donate. How much would you be willing to sacrifice for the survival of another, particularly a stranger.
Giving up luxuries, says Singer, will provide enough money to end world poverty. In the actual world, the government will not do enough to aid starving people in other countries. That means, as Americans have gotten richer, they have given more.
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. When you read his article you may think this guys crazy, and like out of his mind if he thinks that people are going to be so selfless and donate so much of their money to help kids.
Will even more poverty arise from their power. People that are making above necessity probably went through an extended time period of schooling or worked hard for several years to achieve their current salary.
The elderly people are prone to sicknesses, and may need some of that spare money for their medical bills. It might be wiser to call on professionals having important skills to sacrifice a year or two of their professional careers in order to go to another nation and share their knowledge with people there.
It is said by Singer that if Dora had not gone back to try and save the child in the movie many would be quick to condemn her. It is unrealistic to expect people to live up to their moral obligations if their obligations require large sacrifices. Singer suggests to contribute big amounts of money that would all go to charities to support poor and diseased children questioning at what point can you stop donate money.
Both of these people did something morally wrong, but Bob unlike Dora had a chance to save a life that he could have easily avoided by smashing his old car.
People work hard for their money and therefore deserve to enjoy it. He notices a child on another track with a train that is coming. No one said that meeting our moral obligations is easy. I believe that everyone is entitled to do what they want in their life and no one has the right to say that what they are doing is not morally right.
First, his solution to world poverty is questionable and thus the purpose of the essay looks doubtful to those who support other solutions. Therefore, the individuals that chose to spend their extra money on luxury goods rather than donating it are making a moral mistake.
We only have to pay dollars notdollars. The car may be his only hobby, the pursuit in which he engages with great zest. Singer informs us that he is a utilitarian philosopher, or one who judges whether acts are right or wrong by their consequences. What would you do if you were placed in bobs situation.
Do you think that it would be fought by the public if the government were to say that a percentage of their pay checks had to be donated to charity. In this example there is a man named Bob who was faced with the decision of allowing a runaway train to hit and kill a child or he could throw a switch that would send the train going towards his life investment, which was his Bugatti parked at the other end, it would be destroyed should he do this.
Had Dora chosen to remain passive in this situation, Singer claims that Americans should be held just as responsible as Dora for the death of the child. At the end, this will backfire the entire plan when nobody has surplus wealth. The article may cause more people to give to charities, which is probably the point.
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. That way, the burden would be spread more fairly across all taxpayers.
And what exactly are the uncertainties. Why invest the extra effort if it will go to a stranger?. Peter Singer “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” Bob and the Bugatti: An argument by analogy.
Singer describes a hypothetical situation in which Bob has invested his life savings in an uninsured car – a Bugatti – which he. Response to Singer's Solution to World Poverty The Singer Solution to World Poverty. He asserts that the prosperous individuals should donate money to overseas aid organizations to help the.
1 Explain and critically assess the “Singer Solution” to Global Poverty Introduction In this essay, I will summarise Singer's “solution” to world poverty, and then consider some. Argumentative Response to “the Singer Solution to World Poverty” Words | 3 Pages.
article “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Singer suggests that Americans should donate all of the money they are spending on luxuries, not necessities, to the world’s poor.
Nov 08, · In “ The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, Peter Singer offers his solution to poverty problems by convincing American society to sacrifice by their luxuries and most part of their income.
He, therefore, compares two examples to prove that we, people, fail to live to live a morally decent life.
Huixin Ma Alison Lau Writing April 6, 14 In the article “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, the author Peter Singer mainly argues that people who are rich should be donate their money to the poor ones instead of spending to buying something unessential like cars, fancy restaurant or luxuries, etc.Summary of he singer solution to