Peter Singer The Solution To Poverty

644 Words2 Pages

Peter Singers “The Solution to Poverty” begins with an anecdote about a man named Bob and his prized possession, a Bugatti. When Bob is forced to make the choice between the life of an unnamed child and his car, he chooses the car and the child is killed. Bob feels no remorse. At first when reading this, any ethical person would most likely be surprised and even disgusted at Bob’s selfish choice. However, Singer goes on to compare the child to the millions of impoverished children on charity, and your money. This most likely made the reader stop in their tracks. Is it really so much easier to let a child die when you know you aren’t the direct cause? Is it really so much easier to keep your extra money when children’s lives could be saved by it? Honestly, the answer is yes. However, I believe this should not be the case. If the wealthy were to donate to the poor, our world would be in a much different …show more content…

One might argue that a higher quantity of donations will change the lives of the largest number of people, but it will be useless if it doesn’t get to its intended recipients. Whatever someone can spare will be enough. It is also easier to convince people to do something willingly of they know they aren’t obligated to. In To Kill a Mockingbird, Atticus isn’t forced to defend Tom Robinson in court, but he does so anyway. This shows that when people feel they have some degree of freedom, they will most likely do the thing. Singer is wrong in his belief that people will willingly give up their fortunes for others. If everyone is forced to donate a lot of money, less will do so willingly or even at all. Clearly, while Peter Singer made important and valid points in “The Singer Solution to Poverty”, his ideas just aren’t realistic and must be tweaked in order to be translated into the real

Open Document