A recent article about Singer in The New York Times revealed that the philosopher gives one-fifth of his income to famine-relief agencies. All she has to do is persuade a homeless 9-year-old boy to follow her to an address she has been given.
How to Write a Summary of an Article? To the sophisticated reader, the main point of focus is the wording and how well the argument is presented, how effectively the author uses his persona, how effective his examples are, and how well he appeals to his target audience.
The main weaknesses of his essay seem to be the example that is a little overdrawn, failure to account for some serious possible objections, and a somewhat problematic purpose.
Singer aims to persuade his readers that they need to donate whatever money they have to spend beyond basic necessities to charity because not doing so means killing poor children around the world much like Dora in the Brazilian movie almost kills the street boy by pushing him into the hands of the organ peddlers.
Basically, the author argues for a redistribution of global GDP via private donations from richer to poorer nations. The purpose of the essay looks somewhat doubtful. One has to decide what Singer is in effect trying to do.
As stated in the second paragraph, he seems to be persuading the audience to donate money to charity.
Is he trying to end the world poverty? Or merely raise funds for charity organisations? The two things can be really different. No one is forbidden to think that the simplest way to end poverty is to redistribute funds through charity.
Nov 13, · This is the argument that we ought to save the lives of strangers when we can do so at relatively little cost to ourselves. Australian philosopher Peter Singer says that where world poverty is. In Peter Singer’s 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. Peter Singer. Journalists have bestowed on me the tag of “world’s most influential living philosopher.” They are probably thinking of my work on the ethics of our treatment of animals, often credited with starting the modern animal rights movement, and with the influence that my writing has had on development of effective altruism.
This pushes one into thinking that effective efforts on combating poverty should direct funds towards projects like infrastructure improvement, sounder governance policies, and so on. Charity means giving bread to the poor all the time without teaching them how to make bread.
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. For instance, a manager of the food processing factory would do better to go and help start a factory somewhere in Africa rather than keep sending them the greater part of his salary in those years.
Singer, on the contrary, seems to see donations as the only viable means to end poverty. He does not take into account the efforts of people who work in development projects, and they may be contributing more to improving life quality of people in developing nations than they would if they stripped their life of TVs and new cars.
With his example involving Bob and his car Singer alienates the audience rather than entices it into donating. If Bugatti is his own investment, then his whole future depends upon it. His car is his only investment, his way to secure income after retirement. If he loses his car, he will have to live on Social Security benefits that are far from secure now with the reform looming and all the talk of the future depletion of funds, and if he can count on them, they can really be too small to pay even for necessities.
The US is a rich nation, but the whole social setup encourages Americans to care for themselves on their own, including insurance schemes and retirement savings.
For this reason, Bob may have not to give up luxuries — he deprives himself of necessities to save the child. The picture of an old man losing his retirement funds and favourite car is far too gloomy to allure those who are eager to share a portion of their pie with starving children.
Singer could have made his demands on fellow citizens more realistic and less frightening if he had chosen an example more suitable to his thesis — keeping necessities but letting luxuries go in order to provide necessities to others.
The car may be his only hobby, the pursuit in which he engages with great zest. Museums and trips are definitely not on the list of necessities, and neither are CDs, books and computers that could store this information.
Singer would have a hard time trying to implement his solution in reality since it feels like elimination of luxuries has the potential to stop all the cultural progress in world and, even more importantly, deny people the right to enjoy something other than simple meals.
Implementation of the solution would force one to produce an exact definition of what is luxury and what is not, and this is not as easy as it seems.
Imagining that the targets are middle-class Americans, Singer is hardly ready to force them into paying for charity with these examples and his relentless claim to give up all beyond necessities. Intuitively, he would score higher with pictures of how charity actually works and how children are saved with the donations.
This is exactly what his paper is missing. And what exactly are the uncertainties? The first thing that comes to mind is corruption that is so prevalent in developing nations. Does Singer expect hard-working citizens to reduce themselves to a life consisting of bare necessities in order to feed immoral officials somewhere in Africa or Asia whose children are well off enough to pay their tuition at US universities?
This is an important objection, and Singer skips it by implying: He does not show that this parting actually contributes to lives saved.
This, however, is the basic assumption of utilitarian ethics — one has to do what works well for other people, not just what is right or moral to do. Singer also fails to account for objections concerning the economic effects of his proposal.Free Essay: September 5, The Singer Solution to World Poverty By PETER SINGER Illustrations by ROSS MacDONALD The Australian philosopher Peter Singer.
I have long called myself a social conservative. I think it is very important to have standards for behaviour (etiquette) and defined roles. The problems with this system is not that it exists, but the lack of flexibility and the value placed on them.
The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty is a book by Australian philosopher Peter Singer, in which the author argues that citizens of affluent nations are behaving immorally if they do not act to end the poverty they know to exist in developing nations..
The book is focused on giving to charity, and discusses philosophical considerations, describes practical and. At some point a longer list will become a List of Great Mathematicians rather than a List of Greatest Mathematicians.
I've expanded my original List of Thirty to an even Hundred, but you may prefer to reduce it to a Top Seventy, Top Sixty, Top Fifty, Top Forty or Top Thirty list, or even Top Twenty, Top Fifteen or Top Ten List.
Context of this essay is a detailed historical field research on the psycho–sociology of a modern secret society called Ordo Templi Orientis (O.T.O.). Peter Singer. Journalists have bestowed on me the tag of “world’s most influential living philosopher.” They are probably thinking of my work on the ethics of our treatment of animals, often credited with starting the modern animal rights movement, and with the influence that my writing has had on development of effective altruism.
September 5, The Singer Solution to World Poverty By PETER SINGER Illustrations by ROSS MacDONALD. The Australian philosopher Peter Singer, who later this month begins teaching at Princeton University, is perhaps the world's most controversial ethicist. If you're lucky enough to live without want, it's a natural impulse to be altruistic to others. But, asks philosopher Peter Singer, what's the most effective way to give? He talks through some surprising thought experiments to help you balance emotion and practicality -- and make the biggest impact with whatever you can share. NOTE: Starting at , this talk contains 30 seconds of graphic. In Peter Singer’s 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.