In this article, Peter Singer argues that rich people should not spend their wealth on unwanted things when other people around the world are starving. The author of this article feels that those individuals who have the potential of sharing should do it until there is a change in the standard of living of other people. In this case, Peter argues that rich people should share their money with those people in ultimate poverty and the less fortunate. In arguing for this conclusion, I will not claim against the act of sharing, however, the moral position that I take is, giving/ sharing is a personal choice and not an obligation because one is rich.
According to Peter, wealthy people should share their money with the less fortunate as a way of preventing starvation instead of spending it on unnecessary things. According to me, his argument is wrong because there is no point of a person working hard and saving wisely with lots of sacrifices only to give their wealth to immobilize individuals who expect handouts from other hardworking people. People are motivated by money that’s why many people achieve their goals in education, risk their money in investment, and also wake up to work every day to meet their desires in life. In this case, I don’t see the point of giving away what they have genuinely worked for with the aim of eradicating poverty and feeding people who are starving all over the world. In this case, I believe that the salaries hardworking people get belong to their families and for them to spend on what they want. Therefore, it’s logical that rich people should be blessed with longer more productive lives as compared to those who idle all day expecting handouts from other hardworking people.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
