Singer Argument Essay
Singer Argument Essay
The average American is richer than more than 90 percent of the world’s population. Shocking, isn’t it? Because of this, wouldn’t the right thing to do be sharing our prosperity with our brethren? Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics, calls attention to the need of food and medicine in many parts of the world in his article “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”. He claims the formula to ending poverty is simple; “whatever money you’re spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away.” While it may sound morally right to give up our selfish ways and give to the less fortunate, Singer’s solution isn’t very realistic as he disregards many key factors. Some may even call his solution naive. Although I grant that donating large portions of our income overseas would be considered morally right, I still maintain that such donations would destroy our economy and make those countries dependent on donations.
Some may argue that it is morally right to give up luxuries to help others. In Proverbs, one can summarize part of chapter 3 to that one must “help thy neighbor”. Also in the Bible, it states “he who resists temptation shall receive the crown of life”. Religious affiliation aside, giving to others as a selfless act is always commendable. That idea granted, isn’t the complete denial to one’s wants dehumanizing? The majority of the earth lives with only necessities: the plants and animals. Necessities are the things we need for survival, so food, water, and a place to live are all we can have for Singer’s solution. In a discussion about what constitutes the self in my English class, many have concluded that the things one associates oneself with determine who one is. Without any luxuries, who are we? Our natural instinct is to want things we don’t need. The universal understanding of economics is that scarcity will always persist as there are unlimited wants but limited resources. While donating money to the less fortunate is morally
The average American is richer than more than 90 percent of the world’s population. Shocking, isn’t it? Because of this, wouldn’t the right thing to do be sharing our prosperity with our brethren? Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics, calls attention to the need of food and medicine in many parts of the world in his article “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”. He claims the formula to ending poverty is simple; “whatever money you’re spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away.” While it may sound morally right to give up our selfish ways and give to the less fortunate, Singer’s solution isn’t very realistic as he disregards many key factors. Some may even call his solution naive. Although I grant that donating large portions of our income overseas would be considered morally right, I still maintain that such donations would destroy our economy and make those countries dependent on donations.
Some may argue that it is morally right to give up luxuries to help others. In Proverbs, one can summarize part of chapter 3 to that one must “help thy neighbor”. Also in the Bible, it states “he who resists temptation shall receive the crown of life”. Religious affiliation aside, giving to others as a selfless act is always commendable. That idea granted, isn’t the complete denial to one’s wants dehumanizing? The majority of the earth lives with only necessities: the plants and animals. Necessities are the things we need for survival, so food, water, and a place to live are all we can have for Singer’s solution. In a discussion about what constitutes the self in my English class, many have concluded that the things one associates oneself with determine who one is. Without any luxuries, who are we? Our natural instinct is to want things we don’t need. The universal understanding of economics is that scarcity will always persist as there are unlimited wants but limited resources. While donating money to the less fortunate is morally