If we don't do it, then we should at least know that we are failing to live a morally decent life -- not because it is good to wallow in guilt but because knowing where we should be going is the first step toward heading in that direction. Unlike Dora, Bob did not have to look into the eyes of the child he was sacrificing for his own material comfort. Peter Singer's Solution to World Poverty Singer's essay the focus of my topic was published in New York Times Magazine in the year of 1999. Most of us most Americans, that is could save the life of a child by making a donation of several hundred dollars to a charitable organization. The child was a complete stranger to him and too far away to relate to in an intimate, personal way. Therefore, Singer solution toward the poverty will not success. He can't stop the train and the child is too far away to warn of the danger, but he can throw a switch that will divert the train down the siding where his Bugatti is parked.
In order to enhance the effectiveness of his argument, Singer should have utilized appeals to logos, such as quoting an expert and providing statistics. While the idea that no one need do more than his or her fair share is a powerful one, should it prevail if we know that others are not doing their fair share and that children will die preventable deaths unless we do more than our fair share? Looking farther down the track, he sees the small figure of a child very likely to be killed by the runaway train. Money should only be spent on your needs but not luxuries. People have the tendency to feel the need to go out and upgrade to the newest clothes or electronics. That's right: I'm saying that you shouldn't buy that new car, take that cruise, redecorate the house or get that pricey new suit. Therefore, Singer suggests the ethical thing to do to end world hunger is to give up everyday luxuries.
Should he still throw the switch? When Bob first grasped the dilemma that faced him as he stood by that railway switch, he must have thought how extraordinarily unlucky he was to be placed in a situation in which he must choose between the life of an innocent child and the sacrifice of most of his savings. Not far into the article, Singer presents himself as a utilitarian philosopher. Singer fails to mention how much people struggle in America alone. Just for the simple reason that funds are available as designated positions are filled. By revealing himself in this light, Singer also adds credibility or an appeal to ethos. The premise of Singers argument is simple, people who make more money than is necessary for survival should and are morally obligated to give away all of their excess money to help the poor. The fist situation comes from a Brazilian film, a woman called Dora, all she has to persuade a homeless nine years old boy to a family that will adopt him in order to make a thousand dollars.
In the paragraph below he shows examples how people can act in a certain way that would enable them to donate money to charities and other organizations that help needy people. Therefore, like Bob, we are not living up to our moral obligations. We are all in that situation. Singer's motive for writing this piece is to inform the audience of the importance and effectiveness of donating money to overseas aid organizations and to get the reader to do so. One day when Bob was driving his expensive Bugatti, he found himself in a dramatic situation where he saw a child that was about to get killed by the runaway train.
His argument seems simple and straight forward, but there are several unanswered questions. It is unrealistic to expect people to live up to their moral obligations if their obligations require large sacrifices. In reality, it would be impossible for every prosperous person to agree upon what is and what is not a necessity, and if it were decided, for example that microwaves were a luxury, would the microwave manufacturers go out of business? He describes the bad habits that the most of the people in America have. Many of these people turn to criminals who start using drugs, engage in sexual activities at early teenage years. In the world as it is now, I can see no escape from the conclusion that each one of us with wealth surplus to his or her essential needs should be giving most of it to help people suffering from poverty so dire as to be life-threatening. In order to circulate money, supply and demand factors need to be carefully incorporated. But consider for yourself the level of sacrifice that you would demand of Bob, and then think about how much money you would have to give away in order to make a sacrifice that is roughly equal to that.
Singer is directing his writing to anyone who has the ability to donate. Singer's voice is very motivating for me. I finally finished reading it and I had a few concerns about the selflessness that was rarely expressed throughout the essay. Thus, this ground for limiting how much we ought to give also fails. In conclusion, although Singer does have a good meaning behind his essay, he fails to persuade his audience by being too demanding. Although Singer does mean well and wants to make a difference for those whose lives are at risk, his solution to is too demanding for everyday people and his authoritative deliverance in not very persuasive. For example, Americans can donate food, clothes, and other products to people living in poverty.
First, less or no money have been spending on luxuries, companies will not be able to earn money or maintain their cost. Things should only be brought because the needs of theirs functions instead of theirs models. Would that make it all right for Bob to do the same? Therefore, people in power such as government should always think about the possible results that could derive from certain actions, so this way they can put the proper calculations to avoid problems in the future. However, he chose not to sacrificed his car and the boy is killed by the train and his Baggett is unharmed. I mean, if the world was a perfect place and everyone thought the same way maybe it could happen but not now. So, Bob is morally culpable for his failure to act, despite the fact that the he did not cause the child to die the runaway train did. There is a negative space before the next paragraph.
People tend to focus more on issues directly in front of them rather than focus on issues they cannot see. Someone may say: ''If every citizen living in the affluent nations contributed his or her share I wouldn't have to make such a drastic sacrifice, because long before such levels were reached, the resources would have been there to save the lives of all those children dying from lack of food or medical care. Some Objections and Replies to the Argument by Analogy Our money is unlikely to reach its target, given all of the obstacles and uncertainties involved objection to premise 4. America a capitalist country that Americans work to making a living for themselves and for some their children. Car is an essential need for modern life. Rather than using a nearby switch to divert the train onto the siding, Bob chooses to allow the child to die throwing the switch and sacrificing his car is the only way that Bob can save the child. In such business model only few benefit and many suffer.