Summary Of The Singer Solution To World Poverty

1197 Words3 Pages

In his essay “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Peter Singer prescribes a method in which he believes the poverty stricken populace of the world, particularly children, may be diminished. In order to achieve this, he says that “whatever money you’re spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away” (568). While some may argue that Singer does not truly expect people to hand over all expenditures which are not clearly definable bare necessities, he puts much weight on exactly that idea, leading me to believe it is intended to be taken literally. Additionally, taking in light this belief, I do not find Singer’s “solution” to be much of a solution at all. Singer acknowledges that, sadly, we live in a world which the vast majority …show more content…

Bob would have to sacrifice far more than two hundred dollars in order to save the child in the scenario. Choosing to save the Bugatti is morally reprehensible. With the audience’s assumed reaction in mind, he says, “It is hard to see how you could deny that it is also very wrong not to send money to one of the organizations” (565). While it is understood that Singer is comparing the weight of two hundred dollars to the majority of Bob’s life savings, invested in his Bugatti, as quite less significant, he believes a clear moral line cannot be drawn between the two. Again, he states plainly, “These readers seem to be acting at least as badly as Bob” (566). As badly as Bob, truly? If Singer undoubtedly does not believe everyone should be giving all or most of their disposable income to charities, why does Bob’s Bugatti represent the bulk of his life savings? This begs the question: Are our necessities so easily quantifiable? Does Bob’s Bugatti only represent all unnecessary …show more content…

Singer seems to suggest an almost socialist view on how people should treat their earned income. If the strive to live beyond one’s needs is removed, what reason is there to exceed bare minimums? There is a reason this philosophy has never been successful. Taking away people’s incentives leaves less general innovation and forward momentum in the world. Whether people appreciate the origins or not, selfish incentives often drive such innovation. These innovations could possibly even improve the lives of the impoverished; however, realistically speaking, even if they generally do not, there is the simple matter of less supply and demand. This could result in buying less from countries that will suffer greatly due to lower product demand. Without the incentive to exceed basic needs, less money will be made on an individual basis, too. This hinders the individual’s ability to contribute to those in need, having put them in a position much closer to those which Singer believes should be

Open Document