In this project you are asked to discuss the moral argument in Peter Singer's "Solution to Poverty."
Here are three possible questions.
Do you agree with Singer's point that it is our moral obligation to save a child's life if we are able to without great sacrifice on our part? Why or why not?
Stated in even stronger terms, Singer believes that if we don't take the initiative to donate a significant portion of our income to help alleviate world hunger then we are guilty of the moral equivalent of murder. Do you agree or disagree with this conclusion? Why or why not?
If you put yourself in the situation that Singer describes, what would you be willing to sacrifice in order to save the life of a child with whom you had no personal connection? Whatever your level of sacrifice, would it be fair to say that this reflects the value you place on a human life
In your paper, before you answer the question(s), you need to briefly (no more than a paragraph) summarize the main points of Singer's argument. What issues do they address? What moral perspectives do they embody? What technique of reasoning does he use? Finally, I would like you to infer whether his argument is or will be influential on society as a whole.
The response should be organized as an essay. You may answer all three questions or develop an answer to only one of them. The paper should be between 250 words and 500 words.