Peter Singer Helping The Poor Analysis

1308 Words6 Pages
In order to argue whether we have a duty to help the poor, the following arguments need to be considered. Peter Singer argues for global charity, believing we should give to those who are poor and hungry. On the other hand, Garrett Hardin argues that we should not participate in global charity. Both arguments have strong ideas, but it would be immoral to not give some kind of charity to those in need. Peter Singer gives a more persuasive argument while Hardin’s argument is faulty because it assumes that giving help to the poor is the cause of dwindling resources; however, he does not consider that the individuals in the community may be at fault for its dwindling resources because of other reasons. There is more to the dwindling of resources than it just being an effect of us giving to the poor. Peter Singer argues that…show more content…
This deals with Singer’s view that we have the ability to prevent that which is unacceptable. The author of this article, Nathan Tamblyn believes differently. He believes that there is no such person that completely lives up to what Peter Singer wants us too. Tamblyn himself suggests that we should work towards being more moral in the way Singer suggests. Tamblyn criticizes Singer for he only gave twenty percent of his income when he could have been giving more. Tamblyn criticizes Singer for this because Singer himself said that we should give all we can without endangering ourselves. Tamblyn also suggests that the child drowning in a pond example is not effective because there are not many people that have been put in such a situation. On the other hand, he believes that many people would help the drowning child because the situation is so horrific. He believes that most people would not be willing to give money, but that they would be more willing to save the drowning

More about Peter Singer Helping The Poor Analysis

Open Document