In his article Rich and Poor, Peter Singer argues that we have a moral obligation to give assistance to people in absolute poverty. He derived this conclusion from three premises. The first states that if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we ought to it. The second premise is that absolute poverty is a bad thing. The third premise is that we are able to alleviate some portion of absolute poverty without giving. Singer claims that we all have a responsibility to support people who are in extreme need and are suffering from absolute poverty.
Criticizing The Argument Peter Singer Rich And Poor
BBC - Ethics - Charity: Peter Singer: It's our duty to give
The Australian philosopher Peter Singer, who later this month begins teaching at Princeton University, is perhaps the world's most controversial ethicist. 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. Similarly, his argument that severely disabled infants should, in some cases, receive euthanasia has been praised as courageous by some -- and denounced by others, including anti-abortion activists, who have protested Singer's Princeton appointment. Singer's penchant for provocation extends to more mundane matters, like everyday charity. A recent article about Singer in The New York Times revealed that the philosopher gives one-fifth of his income to famine-relief agencies. Is it possible to quantify our charitable burden?
In 'The Upswing,' History Holds The Keys To Moving Away From Today's Tumultuous Age
The gap between rich and poor in the world today. In the world of , there are still huge differeces between rich and poor , developed and less developed countries. But why?
The fact that we can afford to provide for ourselves even beyond our basic needs bring an important question. Is it then our duty to provide financial assistance to those who do not have enough to provide for their own basic needs? Here is the argument Peter Singer presents to us in standard form. Therefore, the obligation that Singer imposes on affluent people is not as extensive as Arthur. I will analyze both sides of this argument and in the end, propose my own position on this subject.