One day Bob finds himself in a situation where he could save the life of a boy who was in the way of train tracks, but in order to do that he would have to sacrifice his car. If he were to not save the boy he car would be unharmed. Bob decided not to sacrifice his car, he has no remorse and will enjoy the car for the rest of his life. As someone is reading this story they would agree that Dora made the better choice. It was selfless, and the right thing to do where as Bob chose the selfish option and did the wrong thing.
The Singer Solution to World Poverty Poverty is a world wide crisis that never ends. Today it seems to be getting worse especially overseas. In the article “ The Singer solution to world poverty” Peter Singer proposes a solution to world poverty. He claims that all the money we spend on luxaries, should be given away. Singers plan would help many of the impoverished overseas but it is also unrealistic and demands too much from american Citizens.
The Singer Solution to World Poverty: A Summary In this essay, Mr. Singer attempts to persuade the reader to donate all of their money that exceeds necessity to impoverished people overseas. He opens his essay by using a film summary in which a lady name Dora in the movie sells a boy for $1000. She uses some of the money to buy herself a new TV. After speaking with her neighbor about the true fate of the child, Dora tries to get him back. The writer uses this example to propose that the money we use to consume non essential items could be used to save lives.
Garrett Hardin and Peter Singer are no exceptions. The growing gap between the rich and the poor is a continuing problem in the world today and the subject has caught the interest of both these writers. Each writer implements his own distinctive metaphor to help him express his view on the poverty situation. Garret Hardin, Professor of Human Ecology at the University of California, argues, with the help of a lifeboat metaphor that splits the countries into merely rich and poor, that wealthy nations need not provide aid to poor countries, since they will take advantage of the opportunity present to them and consequently diminish the rich states’ resources. However, Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, actually believes that Hardin is wrong in his claim and that people should spend less money buying unnecessary possessions and rather donate that money to charity.
In the article “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” the author Peter Singer argues that affluent people should not spend money on luxuries while those that are less fortunate, mainly children are starving. His argument is based on a utilitarian philosophy that requires us to strive to produce the most happiness that we can. He insists that any money not being spent on necessities should be given away. Under Utilitarianism, this concept is the best, most moral way to conduct oneself. Peter Singer’s philosophy regarding world poverty is that all money that we don't spend on necessities should be donated to charities such as UNICEF or Oxfam America that help save the lives of suffering children in many parts of the world.
Singer creates two hypothetical situations to support his argument and to get the reader to ask themselves, "Should I do this or not?". I disagree with Peter Singer’s claim that all unnecessary luxuries should be sacrificed for the children in need overseas because most Americans really don’t have the money to give, if we stop buying the unnecessary items then that leaves people without jobs, and Singer demands we give to the needy but never says whether he does or not. The first reason Singer is incorrect is that he believes this radical theory that Americans should redirect all unnecessary income to organizations aiding victims of poverty. But yet I doubt he stops to think if Americans truly do or don’t have the money to give. When Singer states, "again, the formula is simple: whatever money you're spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away" (Singer) it’s like he believes Americans actually care.
Healthcare would also be free. This all sounds like a perfect system, but it is far from it. In Communist America, everyone that works would become less and less motivated to work. The reason for this is that everyone makes the same amount of money, with no benefits if you work harder or have a better job. This could lead America to use fear and violence to “motivate” the American people.
Finally, Wilbert realized that he must sell the Cadillac in order to protect his family. Most importantly Wilbert, the main character, demonstrates the theme of the story. We witness this in the beginning of the story when Wilbert impulsively purchases an expensive Cadillac without consulting his wife. Even though Dee is irritated that he bought the car Wilbert stubbornly insists on driving the car south to visit relatives, much to the dissatisfaction of his family. When
“Jack’s Climb to Adulthood” One of my favorite childhood stories is the English fairytale “Jack and the Beanstalk,” written by Joseph Jacobs. In the story Jack is the only son to a poor widow who lives off the milk from their cow. When the cow stops producing milk the widow sends Jack to sell her so that they may use the gold to open up shop. When Jack returns home with only a handful of beans, the widow is furious and throws them out the window with rage. The beans grow into a tall stalk overnight which reaches far into the sky.
American citizens are starting to rely on the government for pretty much everything. Now the government is being expected to pay for citizen’s college education. Higher education in America should not be free to all citizens because no one for service jobs, lack of motivation, and there are already programs for those who desire to go to school. America was built by the hard working man. The man who goes to work, works with his hand, and goes home dog tired.