1. Much of Western society is under the impression that they do not need to act to help save people in need who happen to be placed on the oppossite side of the world. He thinks people in Western countries are too centered around personal wealth and although they don't know it, morally obligated to help people in need no matter where they are on the world.
2. Singer proposes multiple solutions, some more radical than others, however all of them do pose orthodox solutions to solving the problem he presented. His most radical one is that every person is morally bound to give any exess money they have to charities in need so long as it doesn't put you or your dependents in the situation of the those you are giving to in the first place. This solution would come across as irrational to many people who live in the developed Western World and many would ask "why?", he retorts that almost anyone will agree that if someone were to die of a preventable cause such as hunger or shelter, that is morally bad. Especially seeing as someone could have easily prevented it by throwing a few extra bucks their way. His next solution is population control. He says that anyone who believes the world would be better off if we start weening down the population is being a hypocrit if they don't advocate for better population control. If your not against it, your supporting it and thus you must at least try to promote its cause. His last solution although moderate, is everyone is required to give a lot, but not all their money so they still have some excess so they can dive into their fiscal desires.
3. Singer discusses how in many societies, giving isn't a good thing to do, its required. Some religions word for charity is justice which shows some obligaion of its people to do. One really interesting thing he talked about was that some people have the mindset that if they give money to overseas charities, the government won't feel obligated to do so and thus, an individual should try and keep their contributions within the state. This makes no sense at all because if the government observes no people donating to an orginization, they would deem the citizens don't care about it and thus deem it unworthy of the tax payer dollars they have to spend. His problem with generosity is that although some people donate, not nearly enough people do nor on a large enough scale and is it being generous or is it just doing the right thing.
4. A) The first objection made is that this is in fact, too radical. He counters this by saying most people only seem to care when a moral norm is broken such as theivery, not when someone indulges in luxary. Since he laid out no moral neutrality, peoples judgements on his conclusions will not effect his answer. People commonly believe that is not ones duty to help those outside ones society. This belief doesn't give any distinction between what he calls duty and supererogation, and thus does not justify anything. The true moral point of view requires one to look beyond the interests of ones own society. He also mentions that although throughout time this might not have always been possible, it is without question possible today with technology allowing us to dominate the world.
B) Some people believe it is our duty to be working full time to increase the balance of happiness over misery. Although he doesn't counter it, he says it detracts from his argument and has no real application because he argues that while at the same time, we ought to be working full time to relieve those who have been stricken by famine and disaster.
C) It is common belief of some that they should not give money overseas because that will allow the government to become lazy and not bother doing the same, as I stated earlier in the article. This couldn't be further from the truth however because if a government sees no one activily participating in a cause, they will not feel compelled to spend tax payer dollars on a cause that their people don't even appear to care about. In fact, you should volunteer a lot and get others involved to raise awareness and get the government aware of the cause so they will act.
5. According to Singer's argument, I believe it is an individuals duty to give any excess money one does not require to keep oneself and dependents alive to random charities. The random part is a big part of it because no people are techincally more worthy of your help on a moral grounds, even if someone happens to be your friend, or you don't really like someone else, everyone as a human being, should have the right to aid from others. He acknowledges that although their may be holes in his solution, it focuses more on the big picture that it will bring people together compared to the current trend which seems to be isolating people from one another and pulling them apart.
2. Singer proposes multiple solutions, some more radical than others, however all of them do pose orthodox solutions to solving the problem he presented. His most radical one is that every person is morally bound to give any exess money they have to charities in need so long as it doesn't put you or your dependents in the situation of the those you are giving to in the first place. This solution would come across as irrational to many people who live in the developed Western World and many would ask "why?", he retorts that almost anyone will agree that if someone were to die of a preventable cause such as hunger or shelter, that is morally bad. Especially seeing as someone could have easily prevented it by throwing a few extra bucks their way. His next solution is population control. He says that anyone who believes the world would be better off if we start weening down the population is being a hypocrit if they don't advocate for better population control. If your not against it, your supporting it and thus you must at least try to promote its cause. His last solution although moderate, is everyone is required to give a lot, but not all their money so they still have some excess so they can dive into their fiscal desires.
3. Singer discusses how in many societies, giving isn't a good thing to do, its required. Some religions word for charity is justice which shows some obligaion of its people to do. One really interesting thing he talked about was that some people have the mindset that if they give money to overseas charities, the government won't feel obligated to do so and thus, an individual should try and keep their contributions within the state. This makes no sense at all because if the government observes no people donating to an orginization, they would deem the citizens don't care about it and thus deem it unworthy of the tax payer dollars they have to spend. His problem with generosity is that although some people donate, not nearly enough people do nor on a large enough scale and is it being generous or is it just doing the right thing.
4. A) The first objection made is that this is in fact, too radical. He counters this by saying most people only seem to care when a moral norm is broken such as theivery, not when someone indulges in luxary. Since he laid out no moral neutrality, peoples judgements on his conclusions will not effect his answer. People commonly believe that is not ones duty to help those outside ones society. This belief doesn't give any distinction between what he calls duty and supererogation, and thus does not justify anything. The true moral point of view requires one to look beyond the interests of ones own society. He also mentions that although throughout time this might not have always been possible, it is without question possible today with technology allowing us to dominate the world.
B) Some people believe it is our duty to be working full time to increase the balance of happiness over misery. Although he doesn't counter it, he says it detracts from his argument and has no real application because he argues that while at the same time, we ought to be working full time to relieve those who have been stricken by famine and disaster.
C) It is common belief of some that they should not give money overseas because that will allow the government to become lazy and not bother doing the same, as I stated earlier in the article. This couldn't be further from the truth however because if a government sees no one activily participating in a cause, they will not feel compelled to spend tax payer dollars on a cause that their people don't even appear to care about. In fact, you should volunteer a lot and get others involved to raise awareness and get the government aware of the cause so they will act.
5. According to Singer's argument, I believe it is an individuals duty to give any excess money one does not require to keep oneself and dependents alive to random charities. The random part is a big part of it because no people are techincally more worthy of your help on a moral grounds, even if someone happens to be your friend, or you don't really like someone else, everyone as a human being, should have the right to aid from others. He acknowledges that although their may be holes in his solution, it focuses more on the big picture that it will bring people together compared to the current trend which seems to be isolating people from one another and pulling them apart.
RSS Feed