Rich and Poor

Rich and Poor

Study Overview

Peter Singer considers several facts about poverty, including its magnitude of the problems related to it (Singer, 2013).  Many people suffer from deficiency diseases, which could have been mitigated by taking basics minerals, vitamins, and protein since they lack sufficient income for sustainability (Singer, 2013). He believes that the rich use their funds to get even richer as they forget about those who languish in poverty. In accounts of his blame, he introduces moral perspectives to understand the dimensions of ethics and the global poverty perception. However, several people criticize Singer’s views in accounts of theories, moral obligations, and ethics (Johnson, 2004). Singer blames affluent individuals, organizations, and government bodies for not providing the more to the poor, thus leaving them in absolute poverty. There are several other ideas shown by Singer revolving around moral obligations alongside facts of wealth and poverty.

Singer’s View on Global Poverty

Singer argues that malnutrition and lack of basic needs is the reason the poor cannot sustain themselves since lack of food would lead to diseases. Half the number of children born in many parts of the world dies at the age of 5 years because of absolute poverty (Singer, 2013). His view about poverty seems to revolve around each other such that lack of one basic need leads to the inaccessibility of another (from food, malnutrition, and diseases) worsening the lives of poor people. Singer reacted to McNamara’s thoughts on absolute poverty; McNamara perceives absolute poverty as a condition encompassing illiteracy, high mortality rates, and malnutrition (Singer, 2013). However, Singer showed that poverty is the lack of enough funds for providing basic needs such as shelter, food, and clothing.

Singer believes that absolute affluence has been misunderstood by people who have taken an opportunity of mistreating the poor, whether intentional or unwillingly. McNamara wanted to show that absolute affluence is in the dimensions of human needs and reasoning but not a comparison with fellow neighbors. Upon, such understanding Singer deduces information that shows that the affluent can still afford luxuries even after having the basic needs, paying the rent, and insurance.

The affluent buy new clothes and other ornaments to look appealing; they also spend money on factors that they regard as basic needs to them, such as video cameras and leisure activities to maintain the status. Government bodies in distinguished countries are blamed for providing less amount of funds to critical organizations that support global poverty. For instance, according to Singer, Britain gives 0.31 % of GNP for official development purposes, and unofficial, voluntary companies receive relatively less amount of that. Furthermore, it also uses 5.5 % of the GNP on cigarettes and alcohol (Singer, 2013).

Singer uses theories of consequentialism to show how the affluent cause continued poverty. Further, he related the actions of watching a person die and choosing not to help them, until they die as the same thing. However, there are also several reasons that Singer gives to shows that allowing people to die and deliberately killing them. Some of the reasons given are different motives, the rule against killing, outcome certainty, identifiability factors, and responsibility.

Singer points out the weakness in the five purposes and their consequences after the choice made relating them with ethical attitudes. Singer includes the notion of responsibility, moral significance, and ethics to show how people can perceive their actions towards the consequential situation already evident in society (Singer, 2013). He urges people to leave alone comparison and contrast between killing and allowing to kill and affluence and poverty, and reconsider obligations (Singer, 2013).

Obligations are discussed extensively by Singer as he also provides distinguished examples that prompt an individual to have a reasonable thought. Singer used an example of a child drowning in the swimming pool, a scenario where death would have been avoidable (Singer, 2013). Still, those who have saved the situation have different choices/obligations. Obligations in the example are given in a scenario where a lecturer heads to university and encounters a dilemma whether to wet the clothes (save the kid) or rush to the university (Singer, 2013). Therefore, Singer encourages moral significance in areas where an individual may encounter two choices to make. He finalizes that act-consequentialist would prevent a situation from happening.

Singer provides objections he gave concerning obligations and act-consequentialist (Singer, 2013). Thus, he provides a notion of taking care of families and those people who are close. Singer argues that it is absurd to help those in absolute poverty all over in the world when others help them out without engaging any form of comparable moral significance (Singer, 2013). There are several preferences from such objections; for instance, property rights can make an individual use those properties for egocentric and unjust means. Without a comparable moral significance, an individual can choose to assist their friends and family members who are in lower levels of poverty as compared to absolute ones (Singer, 2013).

Singer’s View Criticism

Contrary to Singer’s thoughts, other sources show that  Singer engaged extremism and was hasty to discard judgment and intuitions (Johnson, 2004). The article Peter Singer’s proposed value of the” person” in” Rethinking Life and Death”: A critical evaluation by Johnson, criticizes Singer’s view on morality and act-consequentialist as he analysis Krantz theory and concepts that can never be applicable to everyone in the world (Johnson, 2004). When a population of 400 people in the world lacks a balanced diet and an unhealthy state, others are providing affordable products to offer the same needs to the poor (Johnson, 2004).

Krantz’s thoughts elicit that providing giving much money to profitable organizations is the best approach in making sure that a country increases its gross domestic product and thus better living standards (Johnson, 2004). He believes that several ethical theories posses danger to society. Singer may be a holy man, but it is not his impugn character as a society may perceive it but human attachments, which results in errors in the ethical view (Johnson, 2004). The reason behind saying this was due to lack of ordinary attachments to all people; this is a thing that many people who deny act-conceptualize chooses to defend the people’s dignity.

Krantz refutes Singer’s motives as he doubted whether it was his according to his will in several ways (Johnson, 2004). Krantz feels that moral issues can never have objectives since they are not present in the universe to table discussions (Johnson, 2004). Another reason to refute comes from the goals of philosophical ethics, which are not discussed by Singer. Philosophical ethics are used where society lacks religious views and personal intuitions; thus, they can be used to have a fundamental principle of ethics.

Finally, the distinguished interest between the poor and the wealthy is given in a way that raises emotions to impact decision making. Therefore, the whole part dwelt with an individual’s interest, and moral significance lacked personal perspectives, and they were associated with emotional reasoning.

References

Johnson, J.A., 2004. Peter Singer’s proposed value of the” person” in” Rethinking Life and Death”: A critical evaluation (Doctoral dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary). Retrieved from https://repository.sbts.edu/bitstream/handle/10392/272/3148550.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Singer, P. (2013). Rich and poor. Australian National University, 1-5. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1885/9990