Pros And Cons Of The Singer Solution To World Poverty

Giving your money to the poor or to charity organizations may sound easy enough, but in practice it is basically impossible. Peter Singer, in his recent NY Times article, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” argues that the rich should donate whatever luxuries and whatever money they don’t’ need all to the less prosperous. Many would argue both for and against such a viewpoint, and such a “solution” would require evaluation of its pros and cons before application.
Contrary to Singer’s position, many Americans, not just the wealthy, would argue that what you have earned or acquired belongs to you and only you, not poor Joe Schmo on the street who wasn’t dedicated enough to hold a job. America was founded on Capitalist ideals: one is free to prosper or fail on one’s own, and many Americans still hold these values close to their heart. Although this argument appears based on greed and selfishness, capitalism is actually constructed around self-interest, entirely different than just being selfish. Self-interest is an evolutionary trait that has kept organisms, namely humans alive, selfishness is a flaw which carries self-interest to new immoral levels. American capitalists would also argue that giving everything you don’t need to the poor would destroy the incentive to work harder to earn their own living
Support for Singer understands that getting rid of “luxuries” does not include getting rid of the food in your fridge that you don’t eat or choosing specifically single ply toilet paper. Instead they argue that you don’t need to pay for the fastest internet, or buy the latest fashion or purchase the newest cars. The money you would spend towards those luxuries would be put to better use by buying lunch for the homeless, or by donating to an orphanage. People can afford to get rid of these luxuries, whereas the poor, the impoverished, the helpless, cannot afford