The Singer Solution To World Poverty Rhetorical Analysis

Singer is no stranger to writing moral arguments, having written many different books and articles in the past on a wide range of ethical debates. “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” originally printed in the New York Times in the fall of 1999 just before Singer began to work at Princeton University, is intended for the common man, a middle-class citizen who makes average wages and reads popular newspapers. As Singer is a professor of ethics, the article is structured around the

By providing a specific number, $200, Singer demonstrates how simple and reasonable it is to save a child in poverty. Additionally, he repeats, “to save a child’s life,” which demonstrates exactly what a $200 donation could do for a child in poverty. As an example, Singer references a credible philosopher, Peter Unger, and acknowledges that “by his calculation, $200 in donations would help a sickly 2-year-old transform into a healthy 6-year-old.” Next, he establishes, “if you were to give up dining out just for one month, you would easily save that amount.” Singer emphasizes this to show the reader how simple it is to save $200, and, more importantly, save the life of a helpless child.

In “A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift, there are many disturbing remarks that make the readers uncomfortable. The purpose of his essay was to try to make the Irish people open their eyes so that they would take better care of themselves. At this period, the Irish politicians were corrupt and the people were not willing to fight to regain their country from the recent occupation of Ireland by England. He used the idea of eating the yearling children of poor families in order to accentuate the idea that the only people the wealthy men of Ireland cared about was themselves, and not the lives of the Irish citizens. The author uses logos to his advantage in order to show the overall amount of people that are in poverty and how they would be able

In this paper, I argue that Singer’s strong principle of sacrifice is flawed due to its over -demandingness. Singer denotes that as affluent individuals, we have a moral obligation to sacrifice up to the point of comparable moral significance to help those in absolute poverty. This essay will argue against Singer’s strong principle as it is psychologically too strong of an argument to be morally obliging. Singer’s argument exhorts us to give based on the controversial principle of comparable moral significance, to donate any income beyond that which is marginally necessary. Singer justifies this based on the knowledge that the suffering of a poor person should be no less significant to that of an affluent one (Singer, 1972).

Due to this reason, Singer states that the fair donation argument fails and would not be enough to fix the problem. Now that we have an understanding of Singer’s beliefs, I can show how Singer would respond to the question given in the prompt. Peter would say that yes he should donate, but the small amounts he would be choosing to donate would be nowhere near the amount that he should be choosing to give. Singer would say that any money that he isn’t spending on necessities should be donated to help those in dire situations, and that not doing so is

In Singer’s “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” he argues the importance of donation to poor people, which could mean the difference between life and death for children in need. He gives an example for Bob, who has an opportunity to save a child’s life, but he could lose his worthy car. He makes a comparison between people who are capable to donate money to save children lives and people who have no chance to help or donate under certain situation such as Bob. He also encourages people who are in the middle class to donate at a minimum of 200$; furthermore, he thinks that people should donate more like 200.000$ when they consider the level of sacrifice that they would demand of Bob’s situation. He gives some estimates for the amount of donations that people should give to overseas.

Johnson talks about the different ways selfishness can be taken. It can either be good or bad. When it comes to good selfishness, it means that you are being selfish for the benefit of you and the other person. Now when it comes to bad selfishness, it consists of a person only thinking about themselves, of their own happiness. These actions have consequences, just like John said, “If you exploit people they become less likely to cooperate with you voluntarily” (PsychologyToday).

Selfishness and selflessness can be balanced, and this balance is crucial to a functioning

Several people may assume that selfishness is both unhealthy and wrong. A selfish person usually puts his own needs before the needs of other people. Selfish people need to be able to draw the line between when they need to worry about themselves, or when they should be concerned about other people. In The Great Gatsby, by F. Scott Fitzgerald, in the view of Tom Buchanan and Jay Gatsby, it is evident that the nature of man is showing selfishness through cruelty, greed, and manipulation. Cruelty is just one way that the nature of man shows selfishness.

Peter Singer argues that prosperous people should donate their excess money to the overseas aid groups. When saying this, he believes Americans should stop spending their money on luxuries such as a TV, a computer, a car, and videogames. Instead of spending money on items such as that, he thought we should start sending money to those who are starving in other countries and need our help. There are pros and cons to Singer’s argument and both can be greatly supported.

Poverty is affecting billions of people around our world and the number is growing with each day. Many people think they can avoid the effects of poverty, but it is something that affects all of our daily lives. Many people see poverty as a person who lacks money, although this is true poverty is caused by many more things than being without money. Just the fact that one in two children live in poverty can help people see clearly the impact it has on our world. Poverty truly does influence the type of care and treatment a person will receive when they need it.

There are several pros to Singer’s belief. One of these is that this idea appeals to morals. To give up luxuries for the good of overs

When you think of selfishness, you think about the kid who grew up as an only child. Someone who is selfish is stingy, narrow-minded and self-centered. Saunders calls selfishness a sickness. Sadly, there is no doctor that can prescribe us anything. Only we ourselves can heal us.

Singer attempts to close this gap with the age old question of ‘why don’t we give the riches’ money to the poor’. The essence of Singer’s argument is obviously end world poverty. Probably the strongest point made in Singer’s argument is the involvement of the whole world. By taking this money from those across the world eliminates the opportunity for indifference. To stand with indifference is to stand with the oppressor.

Ultimately, Singer believes that the fortunate need to drastically revise their way of thinking. Giving to famine relief should be thought of as a duty rather than charity and should be morally required by everyone