Peter Singer Poverty

Is the Singer solution to world poverty effective?

This essay will argue that Peter Singers ethnic belief that people in developed nations are obligated to help the world’s poorest people is successful. Singer argues that we should save the lives of strangers when we can do so at relatively little cost. Firstly the theory of this argument will be summarised, and secondly reason will be presented to agree but disagree with singer. In this section I will consider Singers argument that there will be less poverty if we give portions of our income to the homeless. Singer argues that “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought,

In one example, Bob a retiring man has invested most of his savings in a rare and valuable car, but he also knows that from its rising market value, he will always be able to sell it and live comfortably after retirement. One day Bob has gone for a drive and parks his car near the end of a railway siding. He soon comes across a child on the train tracks, where he has two options to save the child by throwing a switch that will divert the train down the siding where his Bugatti is parked, which would save the child but destroy his prized possession, or to let the child die. He chooses to let the child die (Singer, P., 1999). Although Bob’s decision was appalling to most of us Singer draws us to the fact that we are all just as morally wrong as Bob. We have the opportunity to save a human beings life, but by not giving them money we are killing them. Even though we all are thinking comparing a child’s death to being just as bad as not giving a homeless person a dollar or two is ridiculous, in some sense it’s true. In the Bob scenario bob knew by not throwing the switch it would kill the child. But there are children on the verge of death who need help who we just brush off. Singer even compares the little help Americans give starving children in Africa to Nazi Germany and his solution to poverty is seen as too demanding for everyday people. Furthermore,

Selfishness is at the core of what singers thinking, in an interview singer says “We are so prepared to spend money on luxuries, rather than give substantial amounts to alleviating kind of poverty that leads to preventable death of so many people elsewhere in the world” (Eidos84, 2010). These words make me agree with Singer that most of the stuff we spend our money on is unnecessary as he said in another example. This example was a story of how he knew of a couple that wasted $200 on a night out. It’s good to treat yourself with the hard earned money you’ve made but wouldn’t it be better to give someone money that you can clearly do so having a roof over your head and necessities and they have nothing. Some might say that they don’t give money to homeless as they might spend it on drugs or alcohol. But our decision to give money to someone in the hope that it will help them is morally right. If they then decide to use that money you’ve trusted them to use to benefit themselves on unnecessary things such as alcohol, then it’s no longer our moral dilemma, it’s theirs. To conclude Singers argument on the solution to world poverty is successful and a sound argument as although some of his points are seen as too demanding, Singer isn’t trying to say we can’t treat ourselves ,cause we should it’s just we should also use money without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, on the homeless. That