Peter Singer, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”

Peter Singer, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”

Peter Singer’s article, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, highlights the need to prevent absolute poverty in developing countries. An estimate of one billion people live in “a condition of life characterized with malnutrition, illiteracy, disease, squalid surroundings, high infant mortality and low life expectancy” according to Wesley Bagby (pp. 29). As a victim of Sudan’s civil war and a former refugee, I totally understand what it means to be homeless and street child. The hardship endured by homeless and street children on a daily basis is unbelievable; a day without food to eat, a day without clean water to drink, a day without shelter, a day without cloth, a day without medical care, and a day without security. There is no doubt that a significant number of people are living under conditions of extreme poverty. According to Peter Singer, ‘‘if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought morally to do it’’ (Ethics in practice, p. 573). Singer believes that prosperous people have a moral obligation to donate portion of their income to organizations meant to help those less fortunate children. I strongly support Peter Singer’s claim that there is a need to fight absolute poverty, but I don’t agree to Singer’s claim an individual should donate a large portion of their income.

In the New York Times Article “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, the author Peter Singer argues if bad things are happening and there is something we can do to prevent some of bad things from happening, then we are morally obligated to help. Peter Singer gives two hypothetical situations: The first hypothetical portray James, a former football player in Mexico, as human trafficker. James persuaded young women in South American to come to the United States and marriage a wealthy man. When James successful delivers the young women into the United States, he pocketed thousands of dollars as reward. After spending some of the money on a new television, new cars, new house, new iphone; James was told that these young women will be forced to hard labor and prostitution. As a consequence, James resolves to quit human trafficking. Supposedly, James continues to conduct human trafficking since trafficking is the only way to purchase luxury goods. James will be perceived as greedy or evil.

In the second hypothetical, Peter Singer portrays a similar scenario “to probe our intuitions about whether it is wrong to live well without giving substantial amounts of money to help needy people” [(The Singer Solution to World Poverty) in class, p. 2]. Deng has invested most of his savings in a valuable suit. One day, while Deng was passing by a lake, he saws a child drowning in the lake. Deng have two options; 1 risks his valuable suit and rescue the child or 2nd pretended that he didn’t see anything and preserve his valuable suit. Deng can only save the child or his valuable suit, but not both. Unfortunately, Deng chose to preserve his valuable suit and let the child drown in the lake. Deng will be perceived as evil too.

Overall, Peter Singer argues that there is no ethical distinction between human trafficker, Deng who chose not to sacrifice his valuable suit in order to save the life of child, and American who already has a TV and upgrades to luxury one while knowing the money could have been used to save the lives of children. The author believes that rich people should donate all of the money not needed for the basic requirements of life to organizations meant to help poor children. Falling to act contribute to human trafficking in South America. Of course, most of Americans would disagree with Peter Singer’s claim that there is ethical difference between participating in human trafficking and refusing to intervene in saving the life of child. In addition, there is a strong connection between luxury goods and the economy. In fact, there is a claim that American economic prosperity depends heavily on customers’ consumption. Without buyers, the production of luxury goods will decrease, and the decrease in production will lead to unemployment; thus, unemployment will eventually become poverty. Innovation in America is driven by demand of more luxury goods. Yes, there is a need to upgrades to more efficiency goods for safety purpose.

On the other hand, I supported Peter Singer’s argument that there is no ethical characteristic between human trafficker, someone who value luxuries over saving the life of child, and American who upgrades to more luxury while knowing the money could have been used to save the lives of child. Yes, Peter Singer is right to claim that we have morally obligated to choose between saving lives and upgrading for luxury goods. Do we really pay attention to result of our actions? Of course not, most of us fail realize that our actions are causing destruction around the world. It is unfortunate that majority of Americans are purchasing luxury goods that are not essential to the preservation of lives and health; while, majority of the world’s population lives on less then dollar a day. There is distinguishing between need and want. Need is something that is necessary for one to live a healthy life while want is something that one desired. Do we really need luxury goods or do we just want luxury goods? Of course, almost everyone would agree that we don’t need luxury goods, we just want luxury goods. Americans are purchasing luxury goods such as millions dollar automobiles, jewelries, homes, and countless luxury goods. For example, do we really need a ring that worth two million dollar in order to preserve lives and health? It is hard to justify that it is reasonable to purchase a ring that worth two million dollar; while, knowing that the money could be use to preserve live and health of poor people. It troublesome to acknowledge that the value of luxury goods is greater than the preservation of children lives. Saving human live is worthy more than luxury goods.

According to Peter Singer, ‘‘if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought morally to do it” (Ethics in practice, p. 573). Poverty, famine, diseases, and lack of basic need are destroying lives of majority of people around the world and yet most of wealthy nations are not even aware of it. To alleviate absolute poverty, Peter Singer argue that wealthy people should donate portion of money to an organizations meant to help people who are less fortunate. He encourages Americans to supported charity organizations such as UNICEF or Oxfam America financially. Of course, we ought morally to prevent bad thing from happen, but to what extent? Majority of Americans will question Singer’s argument base on numerous reasons. Why should Americans intervene to alleviate poverty in foreign countries when poverty exists in their communities? Indeed, Americans has a plate full of problems to solve in their own backyard.

However, it is very important to acknowledge that we are morally obligated to help the needy people regardless of their nationality, ethnicity, gender, or geographical. According to Andrew Kuper, “today, any day, 30,000 children under the age of five will die from preventable illness and starvation. A further 163 million children who will survive this day are severely undernourished. Some 1.2 billion people will try to subsist on less than one dollar a day, while 2.4 billion will not have access to basic sanitation” (p. 107). There is no double that children are dying every day from preventable disease and starvation. It is inhumane to allow preventable illness and starvation to continue in the developing countries. As an advocator for humane society, I strongly supported Peter Singer’s claim, we have an obligation to aid those who suffer elsewhere in the world from dire poverty; hence, taking from the rich and giving it to the poor is not an ultimate solution to world poverty. I can’t claim that giving charity to poor nations will definitively end world poverty. However, it is important that wealthy nations intervene in poor nations to assists in developing economy, education, and agriculture infrastructure. Alleviating absolute poverty requires justice, stable government, food security, economy efficiency, and basic need such as education and health care. According to Pamela Couture, “professional economists who seek an end to poverty agree that poor countries must be helped to build social and material infrastructures: secure banking and trade systems, yes, but equally as important are schools, hospitals, transportation routes, and public assistance programs” (p. 191). Of course, alleviating poverty in poor countries require a huge investment in material infrastructures. There is a famous Chinese proverb which says, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime" (Hunger and Poverty in South Asia, p. 466). Surely, relying on humanitarian charity will not end poverty. There is a need to help less fortunate countries in developing their own economic, agriculture, and education infrastructure instead of giving foods and medicines. Why not teaching developing countries how to enhance their economic and agriculture productivity? Yes, I do agree that there is a need for affluent people in the core nations to help poor people in periphery nations in term of education enhancement, economy, and agriculture productivity.

Peter Singer breaks down his philosophy claim in dollars and cents. His formula is simple and plain; For an American a household bringing in $50,000 a year, donations to help the world's poor should be as close as possible to $20,000. The $30,000 required for necessities holds for higher incomes as well. So a household making $100,000 could cut a yearly check for $70,000. According to Brock and Moellendorf, “Peter Singer claimed that affluent people in the developed world are morally obligated to transfer large amounts of resources to poor people in the developing world” (P. 151). Singer believes that prosperous people should donate all of the money not needed for the basic requirements of life to an organizations meant to help poor. He argues that whatever money we are spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away. Indeed, majority of people will disagree with Peter Singer’s claim. This argument has a big downside because people work hard to obtain money and to simply give it away seems unrealistic. It seems unjust to justify that people should simply give away a high percentage of their income. Peter Singer has failed to consider the reasons why people go to work in first place. What is the engine behind workforce? People go to work in order to achieve their ultimate goal in lives, happiness. Happiness is an important virtue in life; we must fulfill our desires in order to be happy. Unlike Peter Singer, I don’t supports a claim that one should donate all money spends on luxuries and not necessities. There is a concept that luxury goods and not necessities make us happy. And if the money we spend on luxuries bring us happiness, than, it is essential to be happy in lives. However, I do believe each and every one have power to make a difference in developing countries. It doesn’t matter whether we donated one cent, hundreds, thousands, millions or even offering our time to do voluntary work; all contribution are counted and that is what makes the difference.

In conclusion, I strongly support Peter Singer’s claim that if it is in our power to prevent bad things from happening, we ought morally to act. Of course, there is no doubt that great numbers of people are living under extreme conditions of poverty. Peter Singer believes that rich has an obligation to aid those who are suffering elsewhere in the world from extreme poverty. In this paper I have accepted Singer’s claim that we have moral duty to aid the poor, but I have gone on to suggest that humanitarian aid is not an ultimate solution to world poverty. I do believe there is a need for affluent people in the core nations to help poor people in periphery nations in term of education enhancement, economy, and agriculture productivity. Lastly but not least, I disagree with Peter Singer’s believe that prosperous people should donate all of the money not needed for the basic requirements of life to an organizations meant to help poor. I believe we have moral duty to help the developing countries, but it is unjust to claim that prosperous people should donate all the money not needed for the basic requirement of life.

Citation

Bagby, Wesley Marvin. 1983. Contemporary international problems. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

LaFollette, Hugh. 1997. Ethics in practice: an anthology. Blackwell philosophy

anthologies, 3. Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell.

Kuper, Andrew. 2002. "More than Charity: Cosmopolitan Alternatives to the "Singer

Solution". Ethics & International Affairs. 16 (1): 107-120.

Couture, Pamela D. 2007. Child poverty: love, justice, and social responsibility. St. Louis,

Mo: Chalice Press.

Brock, Gillian and Moellendorf, Darrel. 2005. Current Debates in Global Justice. Netherlands:

Springer

Rorabacher, Albert. 2010. Hunger and Poverty in South Asia. India: Gyan Publishing House.