Peter Singer The Life You Can Save Analysis
I have come to enjoy the types of articles and books that make me feel a sense of thrill, or frustration, or suspense. However, I have yet to read something to make me feel a personal guilt. That is until we read the short article by Peter Singer, The Life You Can Save. The philosopher, Peter Singer from Princeton University demonstrated different aids for controversy and boasting. But first let me start with, if you are one that others would call “weak”, why this would make you feel uncomfortable. The article begins by asking you a simple question; would you sacrifice the money and even time to save a stranger’s life? If yes, why do you not give more of your money away to charity? This, in my case, is what made me feel uneasy and selfish.
In his book and short article The Life You Can Save is almost all uncontroversial, yet, while Singer’s ability at glorifying ones self is marvelously hitched to well worthy causes. But certainly his objective of the book was not to make others feel guilty, rather, to get individuals to donate and give more than usual, also being if it is not as much as they can. And unlike come areas of the government, Singer does not believe in supporting a local …show more content…
His book seems to be more so like a call to action for us to increase our sharing. He challenges many likely doubts and difficulties to his writing. Singer deems that a majority of Americans are not too bleakly mired down in the self-indulgent pursuit of selfishness. Continually, the study on happiness constantly comes to that those who are generous givers have seem to be happier. However, his iconoclasm appears when he confronts the common view that your family should always come first, but Singer sensibly concludes that this value should not be a problem towards
In his book and short article The Life You Can Save is almost all uncontroversial, yet, while Singer’s ability at glorifying ones self is marvelously hitched to well worthy causes. But certainly his objective of the book was not to make others feel guilty, rather, to get individuals to donate and give more than usual, also being if it is not as much as they can. And unlike come areas of the government, Singer does not believe in supporting a local …show more content…
His book seems to be more so like a call to action for us to increase our sharing. He challenges many likely doubts and difficulties to his writing. Singer deems that a majority of Americans are not too bleakly mired down in the self-indulgent pursuit of selfishness. Continually, the study on happiness constantly comes to that those who are generous givers have seem to be happier. However, his iconoclasm appears when he confronts the common view that your family should always come first, but Singer sensibly concludes that this value should not be a problem towards