At the end of the movie, in cinemas in the affluent nations of the world, people who would have been quick to condemn Dora if she had not rescued the boy go home to places far more comfortable than her apartment. Singer doesn't even do this. Not far into the article, Singer presents himself as a utilitarian philosopher. Peter Singer, an Australian humanist and philosopher, addresses the dilemma of poverty world-wide in his essay, The Singer Solution to Poverty. Yesterday morning, on my way to the train station, I was stopped by a woman, a distressed mother with the two young children in a stroller, asking for help, asking me to buy her children some diapers.
Singer believes, however, that had the woman left the boy, she would be no different than any average American who spends money on material possessions not necessary for life instead of donating it to a charity. He even goes as far as to compare the lack of help Americans give starving children in Africa to Nazi Germany and those who did nothing to stop the Third Reich. If you still think that it was very wrong of Bob not to throw the switch that would have diverted the train and saved the child's life, then it is hard to see how you could deny that it is also very wrong not to send money to one of the organizations listed above. Human nature can be mean and unworthy, but so far financial reward has been an important stimulator. Now you, too, have the information you need to save a child's life. The elderly people are prone to sicknesses, and may need some of that spare money for their medical bills. Moreover, the ceremonies can be replaced with simple, yet entertaining concerts performed by artists willing to volunteer and help fund-raise money for the poor.
She has a choice to save a poor child or continue to live her life, and enjoy the television set. In one scenario, Singer reminds the audience of the Brazilian film Central Station where a retired woman named Dora writes letters for people who are illiterate. However, poverty has psychological, social and cultural ramifications as well that theorists have recently begun to explore more seriously. These readers seem to be acting at least as badly as Bob was acting when he chose to let the runaway train hurtle toward the unsuspecting child. That would be taking fairness too far. Rather, his view is that there is no morally neutral standpoint from which all people matter equally.
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. I accept that we are unlikely to see, in the near or even medium-term future, a world in which it is normal for wealthy Americans to give the bulk of their wealth to strangers. In the second situation, author describes actions of senior citizen by the name Bob who is close to retirement. People have the tendency to feel the need to go out and upgrade to the newest clothes or electronics. Yes, the notion is realistic especially in seeing the statistics of death due to poverty. She would then have become, in the eyes of the audience, a monster.
Military intervention raises new and very serious ethical issues that Singer does not discuss. I feel that poverty, hunger, and even homelessness are ongoing problems that will never be solved. This created in many countries high level of poverty and high number of unemployment as well. He delivers his message to the reader in an effective and organized way. In a moral utopian society, all people would be able to have the same amount and everyone would be happy and there would be no competition. They should possess rights just as human beings do because they have emotional and physical feelings like humans. Singer could begin replying to the above argument by observing that most people will not do as he urges them to.
Singer has taught at campuses such as Princeton, the University of Colorado and the University of California. Unlike Dora, too, he did not mislead the child or initiate the chain of events imperiling him. Children are vulnerable and innocent beings, which is all the more reason to help them more. I wonder if Singer sends a third of his income to charity? Now, evolutionary psychologists tell us that human nature just isn't sufficiently altruistic to make it plausible that many people will sacrifice so much for strangers. The purpose of the essay looks somewhat doubtful.
According to Singer, Bob symbolizes all the people who are unwilling to help the children dying of poverty. The Argument for Non-Interference 1 People differ fundamentally about what is valuable. Utilitarian philosophers, like Peter Singer, judge… 987 Words 4 Pages responsibilities towards other individuals. But how can children resolve this financial problem? We see people pushing buggies full of items from their past lives, or we see children on the television struggling to survive due to the lack of food or clean water in their country. Finally, critics doubt the priority given to causes of underdevelopment Singer, page 173. He believes that if we can prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we ought to do so.
If people can afford to pay for stuff they need, and have money left over, they should donate money to charities. The most plausible answer, I think, is the point of view that allows different people to live their various lives, by forbidding interference with the lives of others. This is because dangerous effects may be engendered for children, squandering money and wealth on ridiculous fanciful items is killing the poor, and that poverty plays a significant role in affecting lives of poor individuals. Basingstoke, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan United Nations Development. Many readers of his book ''Animal Liberation'' were moved to embrace vegetarianism, while others recoiled at Singer's attempt to place humans and animals on an even moral plane. Perhaps Dora knew this all along, but after her neighbor's plain speaking, she spends a troubled night. Financially speaking, many people can not afford to live as comfortably as they would probably like.