Peter Singer: Why The Formula Is Simple?
Peter Singer, believes that people who are wealthy, and live a luxurious lifestyle should donate their money to overseas aid organizations, and although Singer believes “the formula is simple”, I disagree. When Singer states that giving away money is an easy thing task, I believe that even for the prosperous it is not. Not for the fact that they don't have the money, but for the fact that the need for food and medicine is far too great, and dispersed around the world that not everyone would receive this aid.
Singer gives two examples in which one can donate to, and that is UNICEF and Oxfam America, but what about the other significant amount of organizations around the world. Fact is you don't even need to go overseas to see the Poverty, when
there is many people struggling here in the United States, and not only with food and medicine.
Most people who have become prosperous and who spend their money on luxuries, have worked all their lives to be where they are now. They choose to spend their money on whatever they want because they have that right. Singer argues that this is a waste and that the money should be given away. For those who want to donate, they will, but for those who don't want to, don't need to because it isn't an obligation, and Singer’s argument is unjust as he has no right to tell people what to do with their money.
Another negative I found to Singer’s argument is that the need for food and medicine, although vital, aren’t the only problems people around the world are going through. Education is what will drive the future, and without it there isn’t much hope to grow and prosper. Countries who are stuck in war, have innocent people being killed, and Singer didn’t mention to help them. Such epidemics as these and many more also need aid, so why does Singer only focus on the need for food and medicine, when there is so much more to attribute our focus on.
I believe ‘the formula” is not simple. There is much to be done about so many problems in the world, including overseas, but the prosperous giving their money away, won’t solve the problem.
Singer gives two examples in which one can donate to, and that is UNICEF and Oxfam America, but what about the other significant amount of organizations around the world. Fact is you don't even need to go overseas to see the Poverty, when
there is many people struggling here in the United States, and not only with food and medicine.
Most people who have become prosperous and who spend their money on luxuries, have worked all their lives to be where they are now. They choose to spend their money on whatever they want because they have that right. Singer argues that this is a waste and that the money should be given away. For those who want to donate, they will, but for those who don't want to, don't need to because it isn't an obligation, and Singer’s argument is unjust as he has no right to tell people what to do with their money.
Another negative I found to Singer’s argument is that the need for food and medicine, although vital, aren’t the only problems people around the world are going through. Education is what will drive the future, and without it there isn’t much hope to grow and prosper. Countries who are stuck in war, have innocent people being killed, and Singer didn’t mention to help them. Such epidemics as these and many more also need aid, so why does Singer only focus on the need for food and medicine, when there is so much more to attribute our focus on.
I believe ‘the formula” is not simple. There is much to be done about so many problems in the world, including overseas, but the prosperous giving their money away, won’t solve the problem.