Term Paper

1571 Words May 7th, 2015 7 Pages
In Peter Singer’s paper on “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” he explores the possibilities of each and every American giving up about 2/3 of their income. However, rather than simply talking about his own solution as another theory, he tells the reader in so many words that they are wrong. In this paper, I will argue that Singer fails to establish that we are morally required to give to charity. In Peter Singer’s paper he makes the claim that we ought to give up any surplus money we might have and send it to places like Bengal to prevent people from suffering or dying. However, is this really something we are obligated to do?
Peter Singer relies on two main principles that help him establish his conclusion. The first principle state
…show more content…
Mentioning his two basic principles at the beginning without any additional statements allows the principles to be clear and irrefutable. Doing this allowed no room for objection in his argument, therefore, making his conclusion valid. However, Singer’s conclusion is simply not convincing.
There is no doubt that the money being sent will help people in need, but no matter how much we can try it can be nearly impossible to end world poverty. Even if we do send surplus money to needy countries, we will ultimately have to continue doing this for the rest of our lives. In the long run, with the continuous amount of donations that an individual can send may lead to a serious case of depression. The leisure activities that we are accustomed to do for personal enjoyment are key to the happiness that we want to have in life. People work in order to have a happy lifestyle by enjoying the money they work so hard for. Nonetheless, it is important to consider Singer’s response to this objection.
One important objection to my thesis is that there are counterexamples to my argument in which the premises are true but the conclusion is false. Consider a case such as that one person’s happiness is no better than saving many people’s live. Singer argument brings forth is that most Americans could save the life of a child by making a donation of several hundred dollars to a charitable organization. Singer’s argument, however, may have made some readers emotional and shamed.

Related Documents