Try to imagine when you became a homeless child who is facing death because of starvation, would not you want a piece of bread from a kind man? In the article “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” Peter Singer talks about whether we should save poor children or not by donating money. In his article, Singer helps us realize our response for the deaths of children in poor families by asking the reader to consider hypothetical situations and put these moral issues into real life. In the long run, simply donating money to poor countries do not solve the problem. In my opinion, we should help the poor children to make their own living, by spending our money on popularization of education and health care in the poor countries.
In the first few paragraphs, Singer uses examples from the Brazilian film “Central Station” and basically says that in America and other countries, people are more likely to condemn people who do not donate. For example, people who might have been quick condemn Dora if she had not rescued the boy actually go back to places far more comfortable than Dora’s apartment after the movie ends. This suggests that people who are able to help the poor children do not take actions to help them. Therefore, we should start to help poor children by donating money to the charity rather than wait for someone else to do it. Like the author says “Donated to one of a number of charitable agencies, that money could mean the difference between life and death for children in need.”
The Essay on Engage In Personal Development In Health, Social Care Or Children’s And Young People’s Settings
Engage in personal development in health, social care Or children’s and young people’s settings. 1.1- My current role is a learning assistant support practitioner within a secondary education setting. This involves working with vulnerable children and young adults on a daily basis. This includes children on the autistic spectrum, children with physical disabilities, and children with other ...
Another example from the article was author’s analysis of “Living High and Letting Die” by Peter Unger. The example is about close-to-retirement Bob, who chooses not to throw the switch that would have directed the train to another track and saved child’s life. In the same manner, it is very wrong of us for not calling the charity number listed on P299 after seeing it, because we chose not making the phone call while we could have saved one child’s life by making it. According to the author “Now you, too have the information you need to save child’s life. How should you judge yourself if you don’t do it?” In our real life, it is understandable that people prefer to do nothing, because I did not call that charity neither. However, our problem is that we tend to rely on the majority, because nobody will blame the majority. In this case, some people might ask “then why should we donate our money to the charity while the majority is not willing to do so?”
The author calls this “follow-the-crowd ethics-the kind of ethics that led many Germans to look away when the Nazi atrocities were being committed. We do not excuse them because others were behaving no better.” However, I do not agree with Singer’s opinion that we should donate everything beyond necessities, where Singer says “An American household with an income of $50,000 spends around $30,000 annually on necessities, according to the Conference Board…Therefore, for a household bringing in $50,000 a year, donations to help the world’s poor should be as close as possible to $20,000.” However, we save one child by donating $200 as the author suggests, one life saves one life, fair and kind enough.
Since we are living in real world, we should look towards reality, and the reality is that every one of us is selfish. For example, a guy chooses to go to a local Pizza restaurant every Friday night with his weekly extra income, let’s assume $25 approximately. Suddenly, he is required to donate all of that 25 dollars to a local charity. Imagine what might happen to that guy, it will certainly take him a while to get used to not eat in that pizza restaurant anymore. Donating someone’s extra income means giving up certain habits supported by that part of the income, and it could be just as difficult as persuading a smoker to give up smoking. Therefore, we all need to donate money, but not everything beyond necessities. Now, here comes an important question: what do people really need in these poor countries? If I only donate $200, are those money really going to change a child’s life? The answer is depended on what organization you are donating to.
The Dissertation on High Quality Nursery Schools For Poor Children
As we know, poverty is ubiquitous phenomenon all over the world. Some people continually complain that they are just getting the minimum salary, and the society does not help them to shake off poverty. In most of their life time, they have to face the reality to deal with the difficult situations that they find unfair. However, poverty affects children who have no abilities to get through it that ...
According to Garrett Hardin, in his article “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor” he is trying to convince the readers not to donate, because “the world’s resources are inequitably distributed.” and “We cannot safely divide the wealth equitably among all peoples so long as reproduce at different rates. To do so would guarantee that our grandchildren, and everyone else’s grandchildren, would have only a ruined world to inhabit.” Therefore, in the long run, by simply donating money or resource (especially foods), we are making the population growth differential between poor and rich countries even bigger. Thus, we should let them “suffer” now in order to make a brighter life for their future generation and ours’.
However, according to Hardin, there is one exception: instead of giving poor people fish, we can teach them how to fish, so that they will be able to make their own living in the future. For example, we can spend our money on popularizing education and health care in poor countries, so we are helping poor children to create their own survival abilities. In the end, we should clarify the value of 200 dollars: it might be nothing for rich people to spend that amount on a luxury dinner (some of the top restaurants charge even more than that) in this case the value of $200 might be tasty foods and a comfortable environment.
The Term Paper on Developing Countries Money World Poor
1. "The distribution of wealth and resources in the world is unequal." Using a recent example which illustrates this inequality explain what Christians might do to support the victims of this situation. You should refer to the writing and thinking of the Roman Catholic tradition to illustrate and support what you say. If we look at our world we can see that there are two extremes. The extremely ...
Now, let’s save this $200 and give it to an oversea aid organization assuming the money is directly spent on saving one sick child’s life. In this case, the value of $200 is certainly more than a good meal. Therefore, we should definitely donate part of our extra income, but not everything beyond necessities. Furthermore, the money should be spent popularizing education and health care in poor countries. When you see your $200 has made a little difference in the life of a poor children, don’t you feel happy? and don’t you think that together as a whole we can make world better so we should start giving?
CITATION
Peter Singer. “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” The Norton Mix. Boston University. New York, 2012. P296-303. Print.
Garrett Hardain. “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor” The Norton Mix. Boston University. New York, 2012. P158-160. Print.
