A Comparison of The Life You Can Save by Peter Singer and World Hunger and Moral Obligation by John Arthur

In Peter Singer’s, The Life You Can Save, he engages readers by starting off with a scenario of a toddler drowning in pond only knee-deep and asks if the readers would save the toddler. The only problem is, if you choose to save the toddler then you risk messing up your nice shoes or being late to work. Most of us can agree that a child’s life is much more important than a pair of shoes or missing out on work and while many people would help out in that situation without any hesitation, Singer makes you think, if we’re willing to help a drowning child, then why not be as eager to help the millions of children that are dying of starvation every day.

You are willing to ruin your nice clothes to help a stranger, so why not donate money to help a stranger? In the excerpt, he argues three main points: if we can prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything nearly as important, then we ought to do so, people dying from starvation is bad, and if we can prevent many people from dying of starvation by sacrificing our fancy things, which are not nearly as important then we ought to do so. Peter argues that if everyone who can afford to contribute to reducing extreme poverty were to give a percentage of their income to aid organizations fighting extreme poverty, the problem could easily be solved. It does not take much time or effort to help those in dire need.

Order custom essay A Comparison of The Life You Can Save by Peter Singer and World Hunger and Moral Obligation by John Arthur with free plagiarism report

450+ experts on 30 subjects Starting from 3 hours delivery

Get Essay Help

John Arthur wrote, World Hunger and Moral Obligation as a counter argument to Singer’s Life You Can Save. Arthur describes Singer’s viewpoints as “the greater moral evil rule”. Arthur believes that we should help out, it is not our moral duty to do so, he goes on to argue that we have a right to do what we please with our own money. Arthur argues that if we were to live by Singer’s “greater moral evil rule” then we should not stop at simply giving money to charities, but we should go the extra mile and donate parts of our bodies, such as a kidney because one is able to survive without it and according to Singer you should give it to someone to save their life because the kidney is not nearly important as someone dying.

Arthur’s point of view states there are two significant human rights which are “negative rights” and “positive rights”. Negative rights are rights not non-interfered by anyone such as a right not to be killed and positive rights are agreements you make with others. As long as people have an agreement on something, it is their right to receive it. He uses an example of two farmers, one who is hard working and the other who is lazy and is starving because of his lack of hard work. Arthur states the hard working farmer should not be obligated to help the lazy farmer because they never made an agreement, but the farmer should take “deserts”, fairness, justice, and respect into consideration.

Singer’s philosophy is impractical while Arthur’s is not, we as people are not that altruistic. Singer’s point of view could cause things to backfire because when you tell people it is a must to do something then they are more than likely to do the complete opposite, no one likes being told what to do. The overall goal is happiness, but doing things his way would lead to less happiness.

Peter Singer sees donating as our moral duty, an obligation, rather than just something we should do and I disagree with this. I agree with John Arthur, that we have rights and we are not required to help the poor, but it would nice if we did. I work hard for my money and if I do not want to give it away to charities then that is my personal choice not to. Singer imposes his views, while Arthur gives us a choice. Singer has high expectations, as he says that we should give everything away to help those suffering from extreme poverty. I have to disagree with him and agree with Arthur on this because, if it was expected of us to give away everything and we were forced to live a very basic lifestyle with just enough to survive then we would not work as hard, there would not be any kind of benefit for us because all of our earnings are just going to someone else.

People would become less motivated because for most people money is the biggest incentive for people to work, no one wants to work for free. Singer would argue that he only expects everyone to give around five dollars and if everyone did that it would provide those suffering from extreme poverty with their basic needs. Singer wants us to donate to charities and I am not too fond of aid organizations because I feel as though they are not being honest in where the money is going, I would rather spend my time volunteering to help out or give my money to the actual person I’m helping instead of going through a third party. Also there are so many charities in the world catered to different things such as, that even if Peter Singer did convince me to give away all of my hard earned money, then I would want to do more than just help those in extreme poverty.

I also have a problem with Singer and the fact that he wants to help various other countries, but does not focus on his own, the United States. We should be taking care of ourselves first and foremost then worry about what goes on in other countries. Singer would then reply with, we cannot object to help our families and friends first, but only if they need the money as bad as those suffering from extreme poverty, but most middle-class families do not have to make a choice.

If my family needed the help, regardless of how extreme it is then I would do all that I can to help them out, I would not be worried about strangers in another country. I cannot see them actually suffering, I see my family suffering, so to me the people in these other countries do not exist. If you would like to donate to those suffering from extreme poverty, then find a way to balance it out, so you can have money to donate and still enjoy your luxuries, but if you choose not to donate then your decision does not make you morally wrong.

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Run a free check or have your essay done for you

Check my essay Hire Writer