Singer uses these two situations as analogies to the choices Americans could make. Peter Singer should not have included in his argument his demand for people to donate every penny of their extra wealth.
In a life or death situation of a stranger what would be running through your mind when choosing to help or not? He starts out by telling us a story about Dora who was not aware she was responsible for the death of a child where she gained a thousand dollars.
A better solution would be to look at the source of poverty. The child at the other end is a total stranger and he is not close enough to the child to feel any real intimacy with him. People that are making above necessity probably went through an extended time period of schooling or worked hard for several years to achieve their current salary.
In this example there is a man named Bob who was faced with the decision of allowing a runaway train to hit and kill a child or he could throw a switch that would send the train going towards his life investment, which was his Bugatti parked at the other end, it would be destroyed should he do this.
He refused to use a nearby switch to stop the train, which then caused a death murder. At least for me, as much as I care for others who Singers solution to world poverty financial aid, I would not be willing to give all my extra wealth away, especially if I earned that extra wealth. Singer believes that if people give beyond their fair share of donations, more lives can be saved and the money that people choose not to give can be given.
Bob, on the other had, invests in a Bugatti and lets the train run over a boy instead of his car. Bob can divert a train about to strike and kill a child, but the diversion will result in the destruction of his prized possession, a Bugatti.
No one is picking up a boy and selling him directly. He believes that if we can prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we ought to do so.
To think otherwise is to be guilty of follow-the-crowd ethics. One can only suggest this and educate people about the situations of these dying children and hope that they will do the right thing, which is to donate.
Therefore, the argument is unsound. Bob now has a choice. 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.
After all, people work hard to earn their money and deserve a reward, such as new clothes or a movie, for their work. He had a strong argument up to this point but the last page of the article almost completely cancelled out the strength that the rest of the argument had.
Riding the train, a man, whom I had seen already twice before, had come onto the train asking for charity, that he lost his job and needs money for his family. We are the hoarders and forgoing our luxury is out of the question for many of us. Singer uses utilitarian philosophy to reduce our arguments for not donating to the bare structure.
According to Singer, Bob symbolizes all the people who are unwilling to help the children dying of poverty. Now Singer has said that he wants everyone to donate every cent of his or her extra money to charity.
Singer uses Bob and Dora, two individuals who chose money and objects over children, and compares them to his audience. If people can afford to pay for stuff they need, and have money left over, they should donate money to charities.
Furthermore, people expend a lot of energy and put a lot of hard work into their jobs and deserve to spend some of their money on themselves, their families, and enjoy life at times as well. Bob realizes that he has a lot of money that he could receive from selling this car, and if it were to be destroyed he would be losing all that.
In conclusion, although Singer does have a good meaning behind his essay, he fails to persuade his audience by being too demanding. In the case of a man saving his car before saving the life of a child, someone may say that is morally wrong.In the essay “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” philosopher Peter Singer addresses the issue of poverty by suggesting Americans give away most of their income to aid those in need.
Singer believes that withholding income is the equivalence of letting a child starve to death. In "The Singer Solution to World Poverty", Singer didn't employ the same word collective guilt but showed us another less severe phrase-crowd ethics.
Since we couldn't judge those people who don't donate as collective guilt, but to some extent it is about crowd ethics. Dan Gaskill’s LECTURE NOTES on.
Peter Singer “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” Bob and the Bugatti: An argument by analogy. Singer describes a hypothetical situation in which Bob has invested his life savings in an uninsured car – a Bugatti – which he parks on a railroad siding before going on a walk.
A Critique For “The Singer Solution To World Poverty” In the essay “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” philosopher Peter Singer addresses the issue of poverty by suggesting Americans give away most of their income to aid those in need.
The Solution to World Poverty* PETER SINGER *From "The Singer Solution to World Poverty." The New York Times Magazine (). Using a number of examples to. In the New York Times Article “ the Singer Solution to World Poverty” the author Peter Singer argues that there is no reason why Americans don’t donate money they can afford countless of luxury that are not essential to the their lives and health to the needy like the over sea acid organizations and UNICEF/5(1).Download