Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
The Singer Revolution to World Poverty
Transcript of The Singer Revolution to World Poverty
2. Emphasizes the prompt World Hunger Distribution of Wealth Famine, Affluence and Morality The Singer Solution to World Poverty Pros Cons Source 1 1. Singer's argument is invalid
2. Asks people to give their surplus money to charity and he fails to note the negative impact this could have on the individual Source 2 T. H. & C. E. 2005 AP English Language and Composition Free-Response Questions, Question 3 In "The singer Solution to World Poverty," an article that appeared in The New York Times Magazine, Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics, calls attention to the urgent need for food and medicine in many parts of the world. Singer argues that prosperous people should donate to overseas aid organization or Oxfam America all money not needed for the basic requirements of life. "The formula is simple: whatever money you're spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away."
Write an essay in which you evaluate the pros and cons of Singer's argument. Use appropriate evidence as you examine each side, and indicate which position you find more persuasive. Background Information Thesis Essential Questions 1. The Cons of Peter Singer's argument
2. The Pros of Peter Singer's argument Bibliography Cons:
http://carnegie.org/fileadmin/Media/Publications/PDF/THE_GOSPEL_OF_WEALTH_01.pdf Thank you! “Whatever money you’re spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away.” is quote said by Peter Singer, a professor in bioethics. Peter Singer’s belief in extreme philanthropy has both pros and cons that can be seen through the distribution of wealth, world hunger, and individual freedom. 1. Importance of Statistics
2. Aiming for audience's emotions
3. Affirms the needs of others 1. Extreme examples
2. Aiming at emotions
3. Social inequality "Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad"
"If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we ought, morally, to do it" 1. Different approach
2. More forceful
3. Moral issue This, then, is held to be the duty of the man of wealth: To set an example of modest, unostentatious living, shunning display or extravagance; to provide moderately for the legitimate wants of those dependent on him; and, after doing so, to consider all surplus revenues which come to him simply as trust funds, which he is called upon to administer, and strictly bound as a matter of duty to administer in the manner which, in his judgement, is best calculated to produce the most beneficial results for the community--the man of wealth thus becoming the mere trustee and agent for his poorer brethren, bringing to their service his superior wisdom, experience, and ability to administer, doing for them better than they would or could do for themselves. Peter Singer is an Australian professor in bioethics. He is well known for his support of biocentrism which is the belief and the promotion of the preservation of biodiversity, animal rights, and the protection of the environment. He is a firm believer that people must work together to alleviate poverty by donating a portion of their income to international charities. He views on very controversial topics such as abortion and euthanasia has led to extreme criticism towards him. Singer has even been criticized by many groups such as disabled and right to life groups due to his belief that parents have the right to kill handicapped babies. Despite his many critics Singer was named a Companion to the Order of Australia which is a group that focuses on philosophy and bioethics and debates on topics such as world poverty. “Singer is telling people that they need to donate all their surplus money, money they have earned themselves, ... Singer does not say why people should donate every penny of their surplus wealth, he just says we should do it. ... Singer does not even address the issue of what would happen if no one had any extra money. There could be serious consequences including at the very least that no one would have any financial stability....
Peter Singer should not have included in his argument his demand for people to donate every penny of their extra wealth. ... Singer's demand that people donate all of their surplus money made me, and I'm sure other people who have read this article as well, irritated at Singer for making such a large request without explaining why this was the right thing to do....“ We should follow the principle because... “ Americans believed in their unalienable rights: “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” They have worked for their money, paid high taxes for the right to live in this country; therefore, they should be entitled the right to do whatever they want with their money. Questions by critics are raised, “Why are we Americans to blame? What about the governments of the countries where these poor children live?” In addition, they argue that the economy is dependent on the Americans’ expenses. If Americans don’t spend money on expenses, businesses and factories will be closed; then the unemployment rate will rise.” 1. Life Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness
2. Nation's economies depend on the surplus money that people make Source 3 “Charities are often accountable to the givers not the receivers
If the purpose of charity is to benefit the recipients, it seems obvious that those best able to say whether they are achieving this end are the recipients. But because the recipients of charity are often unorganised and the charity doesn't know their individual identities, it's often easier for charities to make their performance reports to the givers.
This isn't much of an argument against charity - being accountable to the givers promotes further giving, and the givers are likely to assess charity performance by the impact on the recipients.
Charities also take accountability to the recipients seriously and conduct research to tailor their actions more closely to the needs and preferences of their beneficiaries.” 1. Charities dell indebted to their beneficiaries
2. Charities deviating from their original cause and focusing mostly on what their beneficiaries want We believe that the cons have a more compelling argument...
But, what do you think??