Peter Singer's The Singer Solution To World Poverty

Jessica Brown
Eng. 96
S. Kim
April 21, 2014 What is World Poverty? In Peter Singer's "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" Singer is describing to us in his story that everyone should give up their money to save a child's life. In that statement, its not completely fair that we have to give away our hard earned money to help out kids. Think of it as this, lets say he put one in this type of situation, what would one think about it? Yes, it does make sense that one should help out and lend some money to help the children out, but not all of the money we've worked hard for to get. Finally with all this, one does not agree with Singer's proposal, its not fair that we have to give away our hard earned money to help out kids lives.
The amount of money one makes, the same amount one has to give away to the kids. In order for the kids to live, one has to give up their own luxuries and money one made for themselves. For example, in paragraph 22, in "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" says, "Formula is simple: whatever money you're spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away." My argument towards this would be, one doesn't agree with his proposal, we don't think that's fair, it's our own money why should we have a choice whether or not to give away our money or not. Singer kind of makes one feel as if one doesn't have a choice. One either has to give away their money or if they don't then they are considered a bad person in his eyes, which once again I don't agree with. Say if one uses their money to buy food or save up to buy a house to live in, one would be a bad person if they spent their money on themselves to supply them for emergencies and not the kids that are in need. How do we know the money we give to the kids, will actually go to them?
First of all, it doesn't make sense for only some of us donating or giving away our money just to save a life of kids we will never meet. Second, after all of this is over with how does one know if the money we worked hard for ourselves, will even go towards the kids to save their life and not Peter Singer himself. For example, in paragraph 3, he states "Donated to one of a number of charitable agencies, that money could mean the difference between life and death for children in need." An argument one would say, even if we donate money how do we know it will be going towards the kids in need and not someone else. Also donating money is fine, one agrees to help them out even for a little bit, but not giving all the money we worked hard to get and not spending any on us or even saving for emergencies. So how is one suppose to know that if one gives up their hard earned money savings, that it will go straight to the kids in need and its not just a joke. Singer expects one to just donate every single dollar one has and give it away to help the innocent kids, that they don't know. It doesn't make sense, like why does one have to listen to Peter and say yes and have to give up the money they have saved up. With all of this, one disagrees with this theory one doesn't think one should not have a choice to give up their own money just to help the lives of kids in need, especially if one doesn't even know if the
money will go towards the kids. Why do we have to give away so much while others don't? In theory one doesn't have to do anything they don't want to, but in Singer's point saying that if we don't do this then were a bad person. Like why are we so in need to give away our money while others don't have too. Another unfair reason. The problem though is that Singer's too much into giving to help the kids, but most of them aren't doing their jobs and is put on the lines to help out kids rather then keeping their money for themselves. An example of this would be, in paragraph 11. "But Unger's figure of $200 to save a child's life was reached after he had made conservative assumptions about the proportion of the money donated that will actually reached it's target." Agreed, this somehow relates to the topic earlier about reaching the kids or not. One should donate some money to save a child's life, but one disagrees that donating $200 or more to help the kids out. What if one doesn't have that much money to give, or thats all the money we have to give away? Also, in "The New York Times Newspaper," Peter Singer had quoted, "Individuals should be giving more to people living in the developing world who, through no fault of their own, cannot meet their basic needs." In which one disagrees, one shouldn't be giving more to the kids or people just by based on their living problems. With Singer's proposal, he wants individuals or families earning more money to give up greater percentages until they had reached their amount. The more money one would have to give up, then it would include reducing half the people suffering in hunger and drinking water. One has to sacrifice our own luxuries and necessities to help out kids in need, or else we're a bad person.
It seems as if Singer isn't giving us an obligation or choosing whether or not one has too. He makes it clear that if one wants to save the lives of a kid then one should give away all the money one has to offer and not use the money to use on themselves. Lets just say, one can't help but save innocent children's lives, one agrees one should, but one also agrees what if one needs money for an emergency but can't help the kids out because one is helping themselves out instead, would one still be a bad person? For example, in paragraph 23. Singer says, "Then, if we value the life of a child more than going to fancy restaurants, the next time we dine out we will know that we could have done something better with our money." Arguing towards this, one would say, the thing is that we have to give all our money to saving a child's life instead of going to dinner or spending any money for themselves. One completely disagrees, how would spending a little money for themselves making one a bad person, rather then saving some money for them, and giving some money away to help the kids. Why not do both, rather then give away all the money one worked hard to get. Another example of this would be, in "World Poverty and Our Obligation" Peter Singers argument is that "people are continuing to have luxurious items without helping other in need. we are not doing what we are meant to
do, which is help other in need. He argues that people are dying by starvation, and if this type of death can be preventd by sacrificing things we don't need, why aren't people not doing this?" In this argument, one disagrees again, don't get it wrong, one agrees that if one knows that one doesnt need all that luxuries that one doesn't need, why not help the kids out. One agrees, saving kids lives are more important then buying a brand new purse, but one also disagrees that why should we have to give up all our money for kids we will never meet, and if its not our kids why should it matter that much? Singer just expects one to do the right thing, which would be giving up ones money and luxuries to help out.