Argumentative Response to “the Singer Solution to World Poverty”
In Peter Singer’s article “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Singer suggests that Americans should donate all of the money they are spending on luxuries, not necessities, to the world’s poor. His argument seems simple and straight forward, but there are several unanswered questions. What is the cause of world poverty? What would this do to the American economy?
America’s economy must be a priority to Americans when it comes to solving the issues of world poverty. Utilitarian philosophers, like Peter Singer, judge whether acts are right or wrong by their consequences. Singer’s solution did not seem to take into account the long term consequences this would have on the American economy. According to Bussinessweek.com, consumer spending accounts for 70% of all U.S. economic activity. If Americans spend less, there will be less demand for goods and services. When there is less demand for goods and services, businesses and factories begin to close causing the unemployment rate to go up. Unemployment not only affects American’s, it also affects migrant workers whose families depend on the money to survive.
The global economy should be everyone’s top priority when addressing the issue of world poverty. If there is less demand for goods and services, that would also affect countries that export to the United States. This would lead to job losses in other countries as well. Eventually it would trickle down and cause more world poverty. Consumer spending is a major factor in our economical growth. Consumers must keep spending for our economy to grow. In order for American’s to help, they need jobs.
According to an article in Wikipedia, poverty reduction has historically been a result of economic growth as increased levels of production, such as modern industrial technology, made more wealth available for those who were otherwise too poor to afford the things they needed or wanted. A textiles factory outside the Kenyan capital Nairobi is a perfect example of how
America’s economy must be a priority to Americans when it comes to solving the issues of world poverty. Utilitarian philosophers, like Peter Singer, judge whether acts are right or wrong by their consequences. Singer’s solution did not seem to take into account the long term consequences this would have on the American economy. According to Bussinessweek.com, consumer spending accounts for 70% of all U.S. economic activity. If Americans spend less, there will be less demand for goods and services. When there is less demand for goods and services, businesses and factories begin to close causing the unemployment rate to go up. Unemployment not only affects American’s, it also affects migrant workers whose families depend on the money to survive.
The global economy should be everyone’s top priority when addressing the issue of world poverty. If there is less demand for goods and services, that would also affect countries that export to the United States. This would lead to job losses in other countries as well. Eventually it would trickle down and cause more world poverty. Consumer spending is a major factor in our economical growth. Consumers must keep spending for our economy to grow. In order for American’s to help, they need jobs.
According to an article in Wikipedia, poverty reduction has historically been a result of economic growth as increased levels of production, such as modern industrial technology, made more wealth available for those who were otherwise too poor to afford the things they needed or wanted. A textiles factory outside the Kenyan capital Nairobi is a perfect example of how