Poverty

The Singer Solution to World Poverty In “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” written by Peter Singer, an Australian philosopher, outlines the problem with people (mostly Americans) giving a portion of their wealth to poverty stricken people overseas. He uses a fictional story about a man named Bob to relate to his readers in order to get them to understand the meaning or seriousness of the choices they make. He as a utilitarian says that people who don’t help the poverty of the world are immoral, because they are not contributing to the good of mankind and are helping to make more suffering in the world. He gives very convincing insight to why the choices you don’t make effect people you don’t know in very drastic ways. Peter Singer starts off this article by telling a part of a movie were a retired school teacher, Dora, barley making ends meat is offered one thousand dollars to deliver a homeless boy to a house. She does this by lying to the boy telling him he will be adopted. In that situation right there he is showing how most people are so selfish that they will choose themselves over others in almost any situation, but especially when money is concerned. Once Dora delivers the boy and is paid she buys a television and goes home to enjoy her new luxury. When she gets home she is nuisance by her neighbor who tells her the boy was too old for adoption that they will cut out his organs to sell to others. This is the part of the story were people would ask “why doesn’t Dora ask what they wanted with the boy before she agreed'” the answer that Singer leads us too is simple. She wanted the money and didn’t care what would happen to the boy until confronted with the hard truth, she had taken the boy to die. After this story he lets you know what he’s really getting at. Singer states that Americans spend more than one third of their income on things no more valuable than Dora’s new television, that people who would condemn Dora go home to far nicer places than her little apartment. Yet these same people don’t think twice about not sending in a donation that could mean life or death to people in need. Singer tells you that there really is no difference between Dora walking that boy to his death, or an American who wants to spend a thousand dollars on upgrading their television. That they should know the money they used on non essential items could have saved a life or at least drastically changed one. Singer understands that after reading this some would try to defend themselves by saying, “I will never meet this person”, or “It’s not personal as when Dora walked him to the door.” And it is easier to ignore someone you will never meet rather than look into the eyes of the one you lead to slaughter. So Singer gives you another scenario, this time about a man named Bob. Bob is like most hard working Americans he works and saves money for a rainy day. Bob’s retirement plan is a very old and rare car he has been working on and saving to sell so he can be well off in his old age, a Bugatti. One day he takes his Bugatti out for a ride and parks it next to a railroad as he goes for a walk, as he is walking he sees a train with no intention of slowing down headed for a boy on the tracks. The boy is too far for him to get to but there is a switch nearby that could alter the course of the train and save the boy. If he uses the switch the train will destroy his Bugatti, so in the end Bob does nothing and the boy dies. Singer then talks about how most people would call this man a monster for letting this boy die just so he can keep the car he put all that money into. This is where Singer turns the table and tells you about UNICEF and Oxfam America, two organizations that take donations for poverty stricken people overseas. Singer tells you that two hundred dollars could mean the difference between a two year old living to see six (the most crucial years of a Childs life) or the child dying. Then says there is no difference between you and Bob. Every time you buy something that is not essential to your needs is killing someone who might just need a small portion of your earnings. Singer goes on to say that people who give ten percent of their earning are far beyond what most people give that he wouldn’t chastise them, but he also says that’s 10% isn’t enough. He talks about how most Americans make fifty thousand dollars a year and only use about thirty thousand on actual necessities. That the other twenty thousand should be donated so you could save hundreds of lives. That most Americans would rather go have a fancy dinner then save a hungry child in need of medical attention. That in the story Bob was thrown into a very unlucky situation, but it wasn’t unlucky at all. It’s a situation everyone deals with everyday, but they just don’t see it that way. In this article Peter Singer gives a very good argument that could definitely relate to anyone who reads it. Its direct to the point and doesn’t shy away from letting you know that you can help, he offers two numbers to the donation agencies listed above. I agree that people don’t do enough to help others in need, even in our own country. The idea he starts with is even a good one, that a portion of your wealth could save lives. Although, near the end he talks as a radical utilitarian saying that everything you make that isn't put to necessities should go to donations. It sounds good but is unrealistic and I think that is where most readers would lose interest. I asked myself if I was going to give $70,000 of my $100,000 salary to donations it still wouldn’t be enough. If I’m working 40 hours a week to support my donation then on my time off I should go door to door and devote every aspect of my life to the poverty of the world. While it might sound a little extreme and Peter Singer doesn’t quite say that, it is in my opinion that as a radical Utilitarian that it is exactly what he implies.