As long as they are helping others, should it matter if the only reason they do so is to improve the image of themselves or their companies? It is easy for us to condemn the people who have nothing but who are capable of doing something.
It is astonishingly within reach, if only we can find people willing to give their fair share and anything else they can. Therefore, everyone should save one child and the job will be done. He revists the example with the pond and the child.
Most people would also agree that every human life would bear the same value. Most would answer yes and say that doing anything else would be, to put it simply, wrong. This time he says that there are fifty adults around a pond, and fifty drowning children in the pond. This is obviously a wonderful thing; but do the ends justify the means or motives?
Wealthy philanthropists such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffett give millions and billions away to health-related charities. We should be thankful that they are doing the little good that they are doing.
Applying this to the wealthy man and the poor of our world, are they obligated to help the poor if it is not an inconvenience? They give so much money, more than most of us could hope to give. Some philanthropists may be driven only by a sense of duty. Bill Gates began to give money after learning about a disease that kills half a million children each year.
The author then discusses whether the wealthy are, in fact, obliged to give, and if so, how much.
However, when you think about the effect of the money given by rich people, the reason for their giving seems insignificant. Nevertheless, Singer continues on the quest to discover and analyze the motives of the wealthy when giving to those less fortunate.
Singer uses the following example: How much should they give? The wealthy are obligated to share their wealth with the less fortunate. Though we believe these things, do we act accordingly?
Singer then decides once and for all that the rich should, in fact, give. It is hard to decide on an answer to these questions.Aug 10, · Precis. Singer begins “What Should a Billionaire Give?” by asking, “What is a human life worth?” He correctly assumes that many people might not want to give it a distinct price, but they know it would be a very large amount of money.
This paper provides a summary and critique of an article by the ethical philosopher Peter Singer entitled “What Should a Billionaire Give – and What Should You?” In the article, Singer argues that America’s wealthiest individuals could bring about an end to global poverty by donating a fair share of their wealth.
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”.
Criteria for determining who should give and how much should be given are developed. The chapter also looks at the motivation and giving practices of people such as Zell Kravinsky, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett to understand what motivates people to give.
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”.
This extract represents the first article of the declaration of human rights. “What should a Billionaire Give” by Peter Singer Article Critique #3 Article Review: Peter Singer is an Australian moral philosopher.
He is currently working as a professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and is also a professor for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne.Download