Cell phones, for example, to some seem a luxury, because of advancements in technology, cell phones bring a lot of enjoyment, yet to some a commodity, a basic form of communication to loved ones and safety.
Furthermore, by donating your extra funds to overseas aid organizations you would be helping a needy person out. It does not say that the government enforces this donation, but implies that it is voluntary. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Who would give away such a great deal of money, forsake their luxuries and live off the basics to sustain a living in America?
Indeed, they do not make products for poor people, since the price they put on it is not really an invitation for underprivileged people to buy it. Therefore, there is no reason why any person should be without the proper necessities that are needed to sustain life.
There is no doubt that the inspiration behind the theory to help feed, shelter and clothe the poor is morally right, but the means of achieving this could not be effectively carried out by this theory. I am emphatic to attest that capitalism made people so blind that it became above the human life, in other words, life does not matters where money is in concern.
And millions of children die from diseases in developing countries that have been eliminated, or virtually eliminated, in the United States. Some philanthropists like Gates and Buffet are atheist, so the reason they do that is no God. In addition, the theory, however, is just that: People may see it pointless to struggle through hours a week only to know that a large majority of that money will be taken from them.
And capitalism is about competition and everybody is expecting and struggle to have more and more. As a fact, poor people had less access to health, education and other services.
This is a constant occurrence in our present welfare system. The argument against Singer would be people should not have to give up what they worked hard for. The Millennium Development goals include reducing extreme poverty, and hunger, increase education, reduce mortality rate, provide safe drinking water and reduce the spread of disease.
They will acknowledge that they lost a lot of money. This young man wants more for his future family so he studies hard, goes to college, and gets a good job. Many aspects of it would result in blockades that would not allow it to succeed.
But what makes her different form Gates and Warren is the fact that she is driven by her heart to help others, even though doing it thinking on place on heaven. And that capitalism is based on ownership of capital though they are not obliged to give it.
In other words, I affirm that the only possible synonym for capitalism is selfishness. The major question arises that directs the beam of doubt over the entire theory: Subsequently, they will not do it. The only reason that man started lo live in society, it is because they cannot live alone.
We cannot help all the poor people of the world if we have poverty stricken people right here on our own soil. Twenty years later he has a good income and can afford luxury items. For example, to some people a television is considered a luxury, while others may consider it a need.
When donating to an organization, especially one overseas, you have to be sure that it is a legitimate organization. The reason that I do not agree is simply. But do I agree with the philosophy of capitalism? A woman became pregnant and divorced her husband so the state agreed to pay for her apartment and food.
Bill Gates began to give money after learning about a disease that kills half a million children each year. If Mother Teresa did what she did, was not that for her own interest, expecting a place in heaven?
The people of society must be the first to embrace the sacrifice to help the poor, but money does not have to be all the help. I mean what is the purpose to have a lot of money when are people around you that probably need more than you? Some need a car to get to work, while others live and work in the same building.
Soon after, they will be again caught up in their own materialistic and short-sighted world, presumably forgetting any resolutions they made to give up their luxuries. Many Americans, unless forced, would be reluctant to give up luxuries and give all money previously allocated to frivolous expenditures instead to aid organizations.
At some point in the course of carrying out this theory, the wealth would become evenly distributed and no one would have money for luxuries. You see, it is all about money.
Picture a young man whose family does not have much money, they have all the necessities of life, but no extra money for luxury items. Bill Gates and Warren give billions to help with health related charities.The argument against Singer would be people should not have to give up what they worked hard for.
Although there are fewer opportunities in other parts of the world, the poverty stricken should work to improve their situation and not rely on the help of others.
Critique of “What Should a Billionaire Give – and What Should You?” by Peter Singer Essay Garrett Hardin What Should A Billionaire Give-and What Should You? - Peter Singer One of the most important issues facing the world today is the issue of the poor.
There are many things that can be done about this issue, however much of the world. Critique of “What Should a Billionaire Give – and What Should You? ” by Peter Singer “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood”. Taylor Bothe “What Should a Billionaire Give-and What Should You?” by Peter Singer Article Critique Article Summary: Peter Albert David Singer is an Australian moral philosopher.
He is currently the Ira W. Decamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and a Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public %(1). Singer skims over the "average" person's duty to be charitable. There is a difference between a disproportionate amount responsibility on the rich and ALL of the responsibility.
Peter Singer explores the idea that particularly wealthy people have moral obligations to donate to charity. Reading what a billionaire give and what should should you, I came across with conclusion that what drives this world is the men’s selfishness commanded by capitalism.
In other words, I affirm that the only possible synonym for capitalism is selfishness.Download