...In Peter Singer’s essay “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” he explores the possibilities of each and every American giving up about 2/3 of his/her income. However, rather than simply talking of his own solution as another theory, he tells the reader in so many words (literally) that he/she is wrong. A large chunk of the essay is basically a big middle finger to everyone reading it. It is almost as though Singer wanted to invoke anger out of the reader so that he/she would then go and donate money to charity, so as to say something along the lines of “You lookie here, Singer, I’m not who you say I am.” Some people might think that Singer is just out of his mind, but I think he was angering the reader by making harsh accusations on purpose. Singer opens his essay with a ridiculous story from a film about a fictional woman named Dora. In the story, Dora is a “retired schoolteacher who makes ends meet by sitting at the station writing letters for illiterate people.” First off, how could anyone make enough money to live comfortably like that? She ends up selling a homeless boy to what she is told to be a “wealthy family.” Her neighbor somehow knows that this is not the case, that the boy will be put to death and his organs sold. Second of all, how does the neighbor know this? This accusation is not explained. Dora then goes home with her brand new television, feels guilty, and takes the boy back. Why would Dora do this without further research? She has no proof other than passing...
Words: 1248 - Pages: 5
...your instructor, are in the "Details" section below. | Date Taken: | 1/30/2015 | Time Spent: | 3 h , 16 secs | Points Received: | 17 / 20 (85%) | Number of Attempts: | 1 | | Question Type: | # Of Questions: | # Correct: | Multiple Choice | 20 | 17 | | | Grade Details - All Questions | Question 1. | Question : | What is Peter Singer’s point about performing vivisection on mentally disabled human infants? | | | Student Answer: | x | That if we say that it would be wrong to perform experiments on such humans but not on non-humans then we are showing bias based upon species alone | | | | That a good speciesist would not perform experiments on any being | | | | That we should test upon mentally disabled human infants because the results would be more reliable than tests on animals | | | | That anyone who would consider testing on a human infant is a monster | | Instructor Explanation: | The answer can be found on p. 6 of Peter Singer’s “All Animals are Equal.” | | | | Points Received: | 1 of 1 | | Comments: | | | | Question 2. | Question : | Peter Singer’s “basic principles of equality” applied to animals means: | | | Student Answer: | | Animals should be given all the same rights as human beings. | | | x | Animals are not entitled to not all the same rights but to an equal consideration of interests. | | | | Animals should not be given the same moral consideration because...
Words: 1923 - Pages: 8
...Kyle Steverson Ann Tatum- Caetano English 1A 13 March 2006 Arising form Poverty Consider these facts: an estimated 400 million people lack the necessary calories, vitamins and proteins needed for a normal life (Singer 50). Millions are constantly hungry, and others suffer from disease and infections. In some areas many children are not even expected to live past the ages of 5 years of age (Singer 51). The examples listed above are all effects of the type of impact that poverty has on society. Poverty can be classified into two major categories; “absolute Poverty” which is derived from Robert McNamara, meaning poverty by any standards compared to Relative Poverty meaning some citizens live in poverty while others enjoy wealth (Singer 36). When dealing with poverty there are many factors hat should be considered outside of just becoming poor; however, for many the two go hand and hand. Poverty is increasing quicker than ever before, due to factors such as over populating and less jobs. Peter Singer writes “ This is the background situation, the situation that prevails on our planet all the time and it does not make the headlines (Singer 160).” Yes, the factors listed are tough to combat; therefore, the issue of poverty should be taken more seriously. The constant debate between the rich and the poor are leaving many nauseated on an ethical roller coaster. Much of the Nation and the World are succumbing to poverty like a deadly plague devouring everything...
Words: 980 - Pages: 4
...Peter Singer – “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” Dora Crawford Prof. David Tredinnick 12/19/2012 When it comes to the article "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" mostly argues about not one but more than several things. In some point most people can agree with his arguments unlike others whom may not see his point of view. One of these arguments was lack of food. This was brought up or inspired by the starvation of Bangladesh his main focus was that if one can use one's wealth to reduce suffering for example, by aiding famine-relief efforts without any significant reduction in the well-being of oneself or others, it is immoral not to do so. According to Singer, such inaction is clearly immoral. If a child is drowning in a shallow pond and someone can save it but chooses not to; nor does placing greater geographical distance between the person in need and the potential helper reduce the latter's moral obligations. “It makes no difference whether the person I can help is a neighbor's child ten yards away from me or a Bengali whose name I shall never know, ten thousand miles away. The moral point of view requires us to look beyond the interests of our own society. Previously, this may hardly have been feasible, but it is quite feasible now. From the moral point of view, the prevention of the starvation of millions of people outside our society must be considered at least as pressing as the upholding of property norms within our society.” Singers main...
Words: 1782 - Pages: 8
...is not compulsory; here, the definition of "party" extends to all sentient beings, even those living solely in the present. Since what is good and right depends solely on individual preferences, there can be nothing that is in itself good or bad: for preference utilitarian’s, the source of both morality and ethics in general is subjective preference.[1] Preference utilitarianism therefore can be distinguished by its acknowledgement that every person's experience of satisfaction is unique. The theory, as outlined by R. M. Hare in 1981, is controversial, insofar as it presupposes some basis by which a conflict between A's preferences and B's preferences can be resolved (for example, by weighting them mathematically). In a similar vein, Peter Singer, a major proponent of preference utilitarianism and himself influenced by the views of Hare, has been criticised for giving priority to the views of beings capable of holding preferences (being able to actively contemplate the future and its interaction with the present) over those solely concerned with their immediate situation, a group that includes many animals and young children. Hence, in cases of abortion, the views of the parent (however selfish or not, as the case may be) are prioritised over those of the foetus, without recourse to any (perceived) rights (here, the "right to life"). There are, he writes in regard to killing in general, times when "the...
Words: 347 - Pages: 2
...Arguments of Peter Singer PHI200: Mind and Machine (ABT1315A) April 19, 2013 Singer’s goal in the article “Famine, Affluence and Morality” is to get people to think differently about famine relief, charity, and morality. These are key issues that people need to be more aware of and act on them. People who are financially stable and well off should take more of an active role by giving more. They should feel obligated in helping those in need. There are many people suffering severely, those who can help are doing nothing. People should be more willing to give help rather than being obtuse & self-centered. Singer argues it is wrong for a person to suffer from homelessness, hunger, or lack of medical attention. These needs are essential in life and without them can alimentally lead to one’s death. Another argument Singer gives is if a person is wealthy, they are more than capable to help others financially. They need to feel obligated to do so. Instead of a person spending money on extras and materialistic items for themselves, they should donate that money to the poor. The money should help with necessities for the poor and uplift them. On the same point he points out, one should not sacrifice if it would put them in harm’s way. Singer’s concept of marginal utility is that one should give as much as possible to the unfortunate; it should never create a hardship to the giver. This would be doing more harm than good. When a person contributes to the poor...
Words: 1027 - Pages: 5
...wants to in form to audiences that no child lives below international poverty live and the Children's commission needs to show that there is a problem or they will be abolished . • Applications and connections The article of Grant is convincing because he mentioned exactly of what is happening in nowadays society and he is also right if the average wage in New Zealand was $1M a year then the figures the commission given would say those on $600K a year would be living in poverty. It makes me to contradict with Singer’s ethic video recording . In Singer’s ethic video recording, he expresses his idea that people should spend their money for poverty rather than for a expensive Prada shoes. However Grant reading is better ,meanwhile Singers criticizes people who spend money for those expensive things. Because this is business , Its “the term includes any transaction designed to provide goods or services for a profit”. ( New Zealand dictionary of business term). • Insights This article informs me a new perception about globalization poverty. The question is “ Should we attempt to cure child poverty when it does not really exist and should the children commission be disappeared “ . • Reference list 1. Grant , D.( 2013, January 27 ). I’d rather a better phone than feed a hungry child . New Zealand Herald . Retrieved from:...
Words: 345 - Pages: 2
...Famous Thinkers Paper Peter Singer Peter Singer was born on July 6th 1946 in Australia. His family escaped Austria during the World War II from Nazis. Most of his relatives died in Nazi camps because they were Jews. Singer is considered to be one of the most influencing living thinkers however he was also called as the best-known vegetarian, and the most dangerous man in the World. He received death threats because of his beliefs and opinions. As he said in an interview for Policy Innovation, his main aim is to reduce unnecessary suffering in the World (Ethics Matter: A Conversation with Peter Singer, 2011). As Peter Singer stated himself “why I have focused on those issues, because I think, as a utilitarian philosopher rather than an expert in particular issues, I can make a contribution (Ethics Matter: A Conversation with Peter Singer, 2011). Peter Singer is known to be one of the most important supporters of Preference Utilitarianism, which in other words mean: “An action is right if it maximally furthers the interests of those affected by it” (Sloane, 1999, p. 53). Among his most controversial and best-known arguments are linked to the world poverty, animal rights, infanticide, abortion, and euthanasia. As a reason for becoming vegetarian and the notion of argument about animal rights was as Singer states an ordinary lunch with his friend who happened to be vegetarian and he presented to him the issue of factory farming ("Peter Singer '07: Animal Rights", 2011). His...
Words: 1513 - Pages: 7
...Media resource Eidos84. (2010, Nov. 27). Peter Singer’s ethics [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVViICWs4dM Argument Outline: (CONTEXT): Instead of spending money on things to make life a tad bit easier for others, why do we feel that it is necessary to go above and beyond to spend money on things that are a necessity? Issue: Why do we go overboard on spending money on ourselves instead of giving and helping others with the extra funds we do have and not seeing anything morally wrong with that? Conclusion: We must practice thinking ethically and learn to take in or account the interest of others. Premises: Singer uses an example that someone may decide to buy a pair of shoes that costs over two thousand dollars. If they had to decide between rescuing a drowning child in a shallow pond, they would save the child and they won’t care about ruining a pair of two thousand. However morally, for the price of those shoes, a person could have helped several children in a poor country who may need medical attention to recover from simple illnesses. I believe that this is basis for a good argument because he is absolutely right when he refers to some of our terrible spending habits. Every year I donate to St. Jude Children’s Hospital because I know that it truly helps children in need. Bran new clothes every month for me could be the cost of a child’s medication in another county. Singer goes on to say, “we make our lives most meaningful when we connect...
Words: 274 - Pages: 2
...manipulated very fast. The problem is how to control the deer population. Singer would want the best for the most amount of people; in this case “the people” are deer. Tom Regan may say that the animals have the same rights as humans. Either way the situation needs to be handled with respect to Singer’s and Regan’s views. Regan calls animals “subjects-of-a-life”. He also uses the same terminology for humans. Regan believes animals should have the same moral rights as humans. He believes an infant or a mentally retarded man should be treated the same as a normal person. However the death of an animal may not be as important to the death of a human being because fewer opportunities are lost. He looks at what a person could accomplish in his lifetime and compares it to what an animal could accomplish and the human overrules. These views can be challenged in the Quabbin reserve. We simply cannot kill the deer because they have rights. However the death of a deer is not equivalent to the death of a human. But I cannot justify killing hundreds of deer with Regan’s view. The deer are not harming us so it would be immoral to kill them. On the other side Peter Singer’s views differ a little bit. Going of the basic utilitarian idea "the greatest good of the greatest number" he wants animals to be included in this. Anyone who didn’t support this idea would be classified as a “Speciest” according to him. Singer would allow the hunting of deer because it would ultimately help more people...
Words: 534 - Pages: 3
...Reflective Journal Ashley Thompson MGT/216 July 19, 2011 Charles Donewar Ethics Game Reflective Journal The Ethics Game Simulation reflected two different situations in which G-Biosport were faced with. The first case was the Case of Fair Warning and the second was the Case of Stringent Standard. Both of these situations involved many different stakeholders. These stakeholders included: Customers of G-Biosport, employees of G-Biosport such as, The Shareholders, The Board of Directors, Carson Nelson (Chief Executive Officer), Cary Bryant (Chief Legal Officer), Jennifer (Quality Control Manager/Quality Compliance Director), Elaine Shields (Operations Director), and Judy Birch (Director of Public Relations). One will be able to read what these two case simulations reflected in this journal. Simulation 1: The Case of Fair Warning The first simulation was the Case of Fair Warning. In this simulation, it was discovered that G-Biosport products were contaminated with hazardous Fibranafren. The problem is that the products had already been distributed and were on the market. The staff of G-Biosport had to get together and share their opinions on what to do about the issue on hand. It was decided that the customers always have the right to know about the quality of all products. In this case Jennifer, the Quality Control Manager, was responsible for letting all shareholders involved know of all potential hazards and risks of the product. The decision was...
Words: 817 - Pages: 4
...Leaders make rational decisions every day in the effect to maximize the benefits and minimize the costs for themselves and everyone affected by it. These leaders just as often make decisions based on emotions, opportunities, present states of condition, and other factors, which are considered irrational decisions. People have the natural desire to be correct without weighing the consequences. One recent example of a company that has been criticized for potentially making a very irrational decision is Facebook. CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, announced that he is buying WhatsApp for 16 Billion in cash and stock, along with another 3 over a couple years, making it a 19 Billion dollar deal for the company. WhatsApp is a leading chat app that has grown quickly in the last few years. It allows people to send video, photos, and text messages. It is more popular in many countries outside of the United States. The app will also not promote any ads for users. The deal’s enormous price tag brings a lot of question into Zuckerberg’s rationale behind his decision and if the pros outweigh the cons. Consequentialism is focused on the basic consequences that come with decisions and determining net balance between the good consequences and the bad ones. Zuckerberg’s decision to buy WhatsApp is consistent with his goal of connecting the entire world, especially developing countries, through technology. The app has over 450 million users. There almost as many messages sent using the app as there...
Words: 717 - Pages: 3
...Seminar Two: Short Paper B Macland Baker College Introduction: The Problem We are given two problems for ethical consideration. The problems are similar in some respects, but different in one primary detail. The problems are called The Trolley Problem 1 and The Trolley Problem 2. Both problems have a runaway trolley that will kill five people on the track ahead if it continues on its course uninterrupted. The first problem has a switch that will turn the trolley off the track with the five people on it and turn it onto a track where there is one person on it. By hitting the switch you will save the five people, but the trolley will kill the one person. Do you hit the switch to save the five, or let the trolley go and save the one? I would hit the switch and save the five. I felt that if I was put in the position of having to choose to save one or save five, I would choose to save five. To not act at all, to me, is still acting because your inaction still kills one person. It is better to kill five people over killing one person? Definitely not. Although I don’t advocate that killing one person is justified. My choice is simply made because I was given the option of saving one or saving five. My option was not killing one or killing five. Mentally, this changes the scenario. It makes me feel less personally responsible for the deaths. In the second problem there is no switch. The problem is made more personal by the presence of an individual. You are standing on a bridge...
Words: 943 - Pages: 4
...Utilitarianism beliefs have been around for a long time but it wasn’t called utilitarianism until the philosopher Jeremy Bentham. John Stuart Mill was a philosopher born in 1806 and in 1861 wrote People haven’t’ agreed on what is right and what is wrong so the point is to come up with a universal systematic way to determine whether or not something is ethical The first principle of utility, as Mill describes, is “pleasure and freedom from pain are the only tings desirable as ends” The second principle is about the greatest happiness. “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to produce happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse.” He also describes happiness as pleasure with the absence of pain and unhappiness as pain with the absence of pleasure -First Premise- Constantly chasing pleasure brings about bad things (addictions, disease, an unhealthy life, loss of friends due to selfishness. You become a slave to your pleasure) The first thing that I believe is wrong with this theory is that a person should not be constantly chasing pleasure -Second Premise- mob rule This moral theory is not only wrong because it brings about bad things but it’s almost un-American because it allows for people to get run over and stripped of their rights if it generates more happiness fir the rest of the community. I don’t think that in any society an innocent person should be forced to be stripped of their human rights if they aren’t willing to give them up. I think it is interesting...
Words: 487 - Pages: 2
...Memorandum To: Hospital Staff, Peer Review Committee, Hospital Trustees From: -Lead Surgeon Date: January 20, 2013 Subject: Heart Transplant Candidate The purpose of this memorandum is to come to a conclusion about which individual should receive the heart transplant taking into account ethics. There are three people who are in need of the organ transplant; Jerry, Lisa, and Ozzy. In order to make an informed decision it is important to look at all three cases. Candidate #1- Jerry is a 55 year old male with three children. In his early 20’s Jerry used steroids which in turn damaged his heart. His life expectancy would increase by about 10-15 years with this transplant. Candidate #2- Lisa is a 12 year old female. Her heart was damaged when she contracted pneumonia a year ago. Lisa has had health problems all her life due to a lupus-like immune deficiency. Even with the transplant, it is unlikely that Lisa will live through her 20’s. Candidate #3- Ozzy is a 38 year old male who has a history of drug abuse. As a result of Ozzy’s drug use, he will not be able to live past the month. With the transplant Ozzy has the life expectancy of 10+ years. The Rights Theory The Rights Theory state that an action is ethical is it respects the rights that all individuals have. Taking this theory into account, I do not think it is ethical to accept the 2 million dollars which are being offered to the hospital in exchange for Lisa to receive the transplant. All three of the candidates...
Words: 487 - Pages: 2
