18 September 2013
EH-101-05
Professor T. Edwards The Singer Solution to World Poverty
In the Singer solution, Peter Singer talks about how it is wrong to live in luxury and watch someone else struggle for the basic things to survive. He argues that instead of going out spending money on necessities, help someone. He also tries to prove a point where as if you have something valuable to you, would you risk savings? Or would you help an innocent person in need?
With this study I agree with Singer, because in reality no necessity is greater than saving a life of a child or an adult. The situation with Dora and the homeless child should not have gone as it did. The right thing she should have done as soon as she found out about what the foreigners really wanted with the boy, was to report them to the authorities and get the boy into a safe place. My opinion of this situation is it does not matter how easy the money is you should not trade a child undocumented or illegally to anyone especially if the child is not yours. The second situation where Bob had to choose to save a child life on a train track or destroy his life’s savings is no better than the first. Bob obviously cares more about materialistic things than an innocent child unaware of the oncoming danger on the track. If you do not understand where the writer is coming from, maybe you should look at it as a parent’s perspective. Would you want someone to save your child from danger if you weren’t around or save their car? (Come on its Good Samaritan law) with all of that being said like the writer said if you could give or do anything to help someone in need, do it because if not you will be categorized with both Dora and Bob and you’ll never know if you will one day need the help of some just standing by.