Majority of the American population is satisfied with donating little to nothing to those in need, but seldom rethink the purchase of the luxury items. Of course, most people could be wrong; we can't decide moral issues by taking opinion polls. In the paragraph below he shows examples how people can act in a certain way that would enable them to donate money to charities and other organizations that help needy people. It's sad, but it's the truth. The resonances of the silence in these negative spaces within the text are compelling. All she has to do is persuade a homeless 9-year-old boy to follow her to an address she has been given.
Whether utilitarianism really has this implication depends on whether sacrificing our luxuries to save children really would maximize utility in the long term. For example: going to the restaurants frequently, buying new clothes, or doing activities that require spending extra money. She delivers the boy, gets the money, spends some of it on a television set and settles down to enjoy her new acquisition. I believe that Singer neglects the other ways that many people give to charity. Who the heck is Peter Singer? If instead the total money dedicated to these celebrations were to be saved and donated to the needy every few years, progress would certainly be a result. What would this do to the American economy? He gives us examples that people should save money on, like going to the restaurants, buying new clothes and so on.
People tend to focus more on issues directly in front of them rather than focus on issues they cannot see. Then, if we value the life of a child more than going to fancy restaurants, the next time we dine out we will know that we could have done something better with our money. That's right: I'm saying that you shouldn't buy that new car, take that cruise, redecorate the house or get that pricey new suit. To us, the standard on necessity will be more than the physical needs but also the psychological needs, such as the need and wish of living in a comfortable and quality life; for example living in a nice house, dinning in an expensive restaurant, having the newest technology. His article, published on September 5, 1999 in The New York Times Magazine, poses several hypothetical and dramatized situations which he uses as comparisons concerning Americans who do not donate excess income.
The call to write such an essay becomes apparent to the reader, allowing for the text to be considered in an ethical sense. Peter Singer is a Bio-Ethicist who has spent a majority of his life devoted to finding an answer for world famine. I do not believe that children are more worth saving than adults, but since no one can argue that children have brought their poverty on themselves, focusing on them simplifies the issues. Singer doesn't even do this. Computer is also a must for modern life. First off, Singer condemns the American consumer culture. One day when Bob is out for a drive, he parks the Bugatti near the end of a railway siding and goes for a walk up the track.
Singer's motive for writing this piece is to inform the audience of the importance and effectiveness of donating money to overseas aid organizations and to get the reader to do so. In such business model only few benefit and many suffer. In other words, the more of something you have, the less additional benefit you get from having more of it. He posits the idea that limiting the unnecessary spending will save people from poverty. Nations will less frequently struggle with high mortality rate among newly born and children as well as among adult people suffering from curable diseases.
Singer feels that the people that have the means to give money to less fortunate, poverty and half-starving people should do it until their standard of living changes. Of course, there are several differences between the two situations that could support different moral judgments about them. She delivers the boy, gets the money, spends some of it on a television set and settles down to enjoy her new acquisition. Singer begins his essay with Dora, a schoolteacher, who sells an orphan awaiting to have his organs sold in a black market for a new television set. I often find myself voicing my opinion about world peace, the homeless, and most importantly, professional sports. In this paper I am arguing against Singers theory because it contains errors and rest on a false premise.
She is told he will be adopted by wealthy foreigners. He argues that people should stop spending money on unnecessary products, vacations, and restaurants. Everyone has jobs according to their abilities, and more jobs will be in demand, more people will have power to help themselves. It only gives them a chance to meet the minimal terms. Many people are in a position to give money to charity, so I'm not obligated to give more than my fair share. We can give to organizations like Unicef or Oxfam America.
Singer's penchant for provocation extends to more mundane matters, like everyday charity. Death by starvation is bad. And what is one month's dining out, compared to a child's life? Singer's solution is suggest every American stopping use money to buy any necessity and donate the saved money to all kinds of charities. Dora feels very conflicted, and decides to get the boy back. The article outlined a plan addressing global poverty problems. These people have cheated death by finding cures and solutions to any malady one could face in their lifetime. Although I may not be an expert on world poverty, I doubt that money donation is the absolute solution for the issue.