We discuss Peter Singer's work in many of my classes. He's been arguing for decades that affluent people are morally obligated to help those that are destitute and suffering from famine and lack of resources (including things like clean water, medical resources, and education). What Singer is ultimately arguing for is an alteration of our conception of what counts as charity. According to him, we should view helping those in dire need as a duty, not something that would simply be nice for us to do. In other words, he thinks we have a moral obligation to do what we can to help those in dire need.
I'm curious what you think about Singer's arguments. His famous "pond example" is convincing to some people, yet others find it entirely unpersuasive. What do you think and, more importantly, why?
23 comments:
I agree with Singer's reasoning. I think too many of us have become materialistic and believe that we are entitled to all of the things we have today like cell phones, satellite radio, gps units, and so on. I think that in the US many of us have become to comfortable and we don't even think about those in need. I believe that everyone can spare something in their life to give to those who need the essentials to survive. I believe it is our moral obligation to give the money we spend on our material things to those who need help to merely survive. If everyone would just give up a few dollars millions of lives could be saved and that is what should be done. No matter where a person lives they are a person and those of us who can help should.
As a few people have mentioned charity begins at home. Well Earth is our home. We all live here. Singer is absolutely correct in calling out the greediness of others and insisting that we all give something to those in need. If Warren Buffet gave 1% of his earnings he could wipe out hunger in a nation like Somalia or Ethiopia. His 1% could cure hunger in this country, the education crisis. Rumor has it he is planning on giving 85% of his 50 billion dollar net worth earnings to 5 different charities only time will tell.I give I really do. I try not to be a grubber or a glutton. I give my clothes away i don't buy frivolously Hell I'm living on an income of less than 15,000 a year. I am happy warm healthy and give to all living things man and beast to the best of my ability. If it is a matter of duty you should still give but be warned in the karma world, and other moral worlds where you heart is in a certain matter, certainly matters. To give out of duty is necessary to give out of free will divine.
I definitely agree with the above comment. Americans are selfish and rely too much on material things, myself included. It is true that one person can change the world. Seriosuly, its true. If we all gave 1% of our paycheck we could abolish hunger. I agree with Singer that it is our moral duty to help the poor. No one deserves to live in an poverty stricken communication with no means of getting help. I dont support the lazy Americans that live off of welfare because they do not feel like getting a job. But the children that are starving on the streets whose parents were killed in war, I feel morally obligated to help them. I do not make very much money but I have the opportunity to obtain a college degree, something most kids don't have an opportunity to. I am going to research and find a charity that helps feed children. Also I am going to donate a majority of my clothes. Singer is absolutely right. People have a moral obligation to help people.
In respect to the previous comments, I couldn't agree more with what has been said. Singer's argument is very compelling. To me though, what really is important in the sense of helping those in need is volunteering one's time to help. Nothing is more compelling than seeing these individuals who are less fortunate and their lifestyles first hand. When there is no contact or communication between the affluent and the poor, it is much more difficult to understand their circumstances and how much they really need help. In fact, I think that Singer's pond example supports my argument very well in the sense that the person on shore isn't actually giving the drowning person money or anything like that, but physical assistance. Someone who was a couple hundred yards away or thousands of miles away may not have even known that the child was drowning. By this, what I am trying to suggest is that many of us may not understand, or even know of the problems that poor countries are facing. If we were to put ourselves into their environment, we may be more apt to help them, because we would be able to see for ourselves that they need it. That could possibly be why many of us feel that helping our own communities first is more important because we actually see for ourselves that these individuals need help.
Joe Burns
Singer is correct in saying it is our duty to give to the less fortunate but for me many questions arise. If 100,000 people are starving in a foreign country what is the amount one person must give to fulfill his/her duty? If someone gives $1 compared to $100 are they not morale? Also is money always what needs to be given or is service or physical help also needed? To me a person does not have to give a huge amount and it does not have to be money. As long as the person is giving to help and not for fame, it is morale. Also, if someone was to provide service directly to the needy this would also fulfill the duty. For example, if a person set up a water filtration area. I believe that if everyone were to dedicate some time or service there would not even be close to this big of need to complete this duty. One problem I find in this is that even with cooperation between many people it is hard to find the will to do this when governments have the power to do so. A government is set in place to protect its people so why are they not? If governments were to come together to efficiently allocate resources, such as food, there probably would not be a problem. So is it the government's or the people's obligation? After all the government officials knew the job and took it, shouldn't they be morally obligated toward this duty? Almost everyone could do something to help in the hunger issue but I think in the end it comes down to whoever has the most power to change this starvation is the most morally obligated.
Torrey Johnson
Torrey,
It's 'moral' not 'morale.'
You're right that we all have a moral duty to help. But I'm not sure why you think that donating one dollar or putting in an hour here and there fulfills my duty. I can donate more than one buck and I can spend more than a couple of hours a year. Singer's right that our obligations are pretty big and that we need to do more than just a little here and a little there. So I think you underestimate what's morally our duty.
In general, I must say that I completely agree with what Singer says. Why should we get to live in luxury because we were fortunate enough to be born in a country that allows us to them, versus someone who wasn’t born in an affluent country?
While reading Nicki’s blog above, a thought came to my mind. I agree with Nicki, in that it irritates me to see people being lazy and living off of welfare, when they are completely capable of getting a job. Do you thing Singer, would say we it is our moral duty to help those who do not help themselves? I would say that we do not have a moral duty to help them. If we have to help them, then no one would be motivated to do any work. Everyone would just look to others to help them out.
In response to Torrey’s blog, I would say that it would be easier for the government to take control. The government could simply make the choice to take so much of each person’s wages and use the money to help with famine. This however may make many very mad and people will say the government already takes enough of their money, but if that is what it takes then why shouldn’t the government do it? So many people say that we should help, but never do, so this would kind of be a concrete way to get the money. This then would enable those who want to give more than their moral duty, to continue to do charity.
Audrey Wenger
i also agree with Singer and agree with all the above comments that we do have a duty to help those less fortunate than us and we need to do more than a little here and a little there. i believe also that there is more that we can do to help those in need and i feel like we do take things that we have for granted like having clean water to drink and take showers in and having food everyday to eat no matter what.
we don't have to fight for food, we don't have to beg for it, and if we really need food we have a lot of shelters and soup kitchens to help us with food, other people in another country dont't have that privelage like we do.
i believe that if you have to time and money to help others thany you should do that because it is our duty to help those in dire need, and people that can't get help like we can.
It's amazing to see how easy it would be to end poverty. The fact that our 30-student class and professor can feed a village with a cow just shows how easy it would be if our whole country bought into it. I believe we have the moral responsibility to do so. I realize there are some people in our country who cannot give anything, but nearly every family can give at least 5 bucks a month, that's barely anything to us. I don't know how Singer is going to convince the entire country of his point, but I certainly hope he can, it's for the greater good.
I also agree with what Singer has to say about how we have a moral duty to help people especially if we have the ability to do so. I know some people do not have the ability to help out others but just by cutting out the little extra things in our lives, it could make a such a big difference. Also, I know how some say that we should look after the people here before we go elsewhere but Nikki brought up a good point that some on welfare and say they are in need are really not. In reality they are lazy and do not want to look for a job so why help them when there are people that really need our help elsewhere. People that cannot drink clean water and people that go to bed hungry almost every night. Just cut out the small extras, don't go out to the movies one weekend and stay home. That little bit over time could make a difference.
As in the above comments I agree with Singer and how it is our moral duty to help the people in need and I think that is it awesome that he practices what he teaches. I think it is a great idea for the class to donate a cow to another country because that would make me feel like I helped out someone who really needed help. And to the comment about helping those in our country before others in foreign countries I think that we should help both. I dont want to get in the the whole welfare debate but America does stuff that helps out those people who need these other countries dont have anything. We are so lucky to be able to go to the sink and get a glass of water or open up the refrigerator and know that there is something in there to eat when we get hungry. I really think that people need to start giving money to countries in need even if it is just a couple of dollars it can only help them. I really think we should get money together to buy some sort of animal to help the ones in need.
Andrea Cunningham
I personally do not agree with Singer's argument that more affluent people should make it a "duty" to give to people who are destitute and suffering.
The whole idea behind charity is being willing, and caring enough to donate time and or money to people who are in need. People who are more affluent in this world work hard to receive the money that they do. It ought to be their option whether or not they want to donate it to other people in need.
Anonymous,
I see where you are coming from but I do not think that you can assume that all affluent people work hard for their money. Some people may inherit money or come across it in other ways.
Torrey Johnson
I agree that we ought to help those people less fortunate. There are other countries that are in much more need than our own. The poorest people in the U.S. do not come close to those people in other countries such as Africa. If we just helped out a little bit as a whole, even if it was just our class, it would just make a difference in the world. And it could start a chain reaction for other people to start helping those in need. It would be so easy to end poverty if people just cared enough to make the decision. If we were the ones in need, wouldn't we expect others to help us?
Kelcey Schaum
Recently I did a little research from a Christian stand point. I have found some biblical insight as to whether or not we are obligated to help those in dire need. Even for those of you who do not follow the Christian faith, you too may find this scripture compelling. "There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land." Deuteronomy 15:11. To me, this is very similar to what Singers argument is. The way the word "command" is used in this verse, it seems that we are obligated to help the poor and needy to the extent of which we are capable of. What I find different is that this verse implies (from my interpretation) that charity also "counts" as helping those in need. I am curious as to if others agree with me, disagree, or want to add on to what I have said.
Joe Burns
I do not agree with Stinger's argument that it is the duty of the more affluent to help those who are less fortunate. I do not see anything wrong with charity because you are still helping out those who are less fortunate. Am I immoral because I do not see it as a "duty"?
If someone who is working hard for his/her money, who am I or anyone else to tell them how to spend it? Who to spend it on? There are those who are suffering from poverty and lack of resources all over the world. Is it moral to justify where to donate because those who are in Africa suffer worst than people in America?
I am not saying that people should not help out those who are less fortunate because they should. People who donate to charity do it out of kindness and because they want to help. If it is more of a "duty" then some may not want to do it but do it because they have to. I think it is more important that people help others because they want to than because they are obligated to do so.
I find Singer's argument very compelling and hard to argue with. The only argument I see is that people work hard to make their money. I believe you can break this statement down into two cases. Either, you work hard to make your money and you make a lot of it, or at least a decent amount, in which case you could afford to give a little money each month. Also, instead of donating their hard earned dollars, people can just go and volunteer somewhere a few times a month. Singer does say what causes we give our money to, is our own choice. On the other hand you might work hard for your money and not make much of it, in which case it wouldn't really be your obligation to give money in Singers opinion. So therefor, I really believe what Singer says is true.
One thing that needs to be done as opposed to many others on this post is we need to not concentrate on donating money for food, but we need to concentrate more on population control. Say we could stop hunger for a short while if everyone started to donate just a little money each month. That wouldn't really do anything in the long run because the population would just end up booming and we wouldn't be able to provide for the growing population anyway. This would just prolong the problems that are going on now and they would eventually resurface. Population control could be the first steps in helping solve problems such as hunger, famine, etc.
I agree with what Singer has said and that is should our moral duty to help those who are starving or are in poverty. People throughout the world and not just Americans have become greedy and all about themselves. If we stop for one moment and think of somebody is way less fortunate than ourselves, maybe it will cause us to go to volunteer at a shelter or send some money to a charity or even better buy a cow or chicken that will help a village survive in a third-world country. If we don’t have the money to donate, thn do some volunteer work for something and it wont cost a penny but some elbow grease. No matter how mall an effort it wont go unnoticed. So I believe that if everybody were to incorporate helping other people in their everyday life, we can then help a lot of people whether we know it or not.
I agree with Singer and many of the other commenters and believe we ought to feel as though we have a moral obligation to help those who need it. I completely agree with Joe’s first comment that seeing is believing. I think it is much easier to feel compassion for others when you see first hand their struggles. It makes want to help in way that is compatible with your means. This also ties in with Audrey’s comment of government involvement. I think that a mandated amount taken out of an individual’s income is the wrong way to amend this situation. Deontologists would argue that the motives behind this may be fine in the big picture of things, but individuals themselves would not be fulfilling their duty, which I think is important. You should act morally because it’s what you want to do and because you know it’s what you ought to do, not just because you have to.
I completely agree with all of the above comments. Unfortunately I feel that the biggest problem here is not that people do not think it is a moral obligation to help those in dire need because as all of the above comments show we all feel that this is a moral act that that should be done. However, I feel the problem lies within the difference of thinking something should be done and actually doing something. As many others have previously stated Americans are extremely greedy and selfish our standards of "poverty" in the United States are that of higher classes in many other countries. I don't mean to bash our country and all of the fortunate people in this coountry but we are all extremely selfish and materialistic, and when I say we all are I am talking as Americans in general. We want to help those in dire need and think that we should but when it comes down to buying that new car, or laptop, or even that bag of potato chips we are doing that rather than taking care of someone else's needs.
I think that we do have a moral responsiblity to help those in need. I also think that people should be able to keep what they earn to an extent If you're poor and barely getting by that's one thing, but if you're rich and are buying 3 private jets, three rolls royce and so on--one would really be sufficient if you've earned them. But taking advantage of the loopholes to buy them is another thing entirely and that's wrong. Saying you only make a dollar--just to rake in all your cash and not help out those in need is selfish and is wrong. You should pay taxes like everyone else.
Sherry T
My personal opinion to that matter is that I do not think that we have a duty to help those in need throughout the world. Although I do feel as though we should help out the people in our country. I feel as though for a country in general we have a duty to help out the people in our country who need it but other than that I don’t feel like we need to help other countries. I am not meaning to sound like I don’t care about the rest of the world I just get tired of spending millions of dollars a year as a country to help out other people from around the world when we have people in our own country that need help as well.
The word 'Duty' implies that its a chore,Giving to those who are in need isn't a duty its a choice. Some people work so hard to earn money and choose not to share it. People who are expected to donate to the poor maybe in need themselves.
Post a Comment