The Singer Solution

Hailey Nichols

The Singer Solution

        In Peter Singer’s mind, the 19,000 people that die per day from illnesses attributed to poverty die at the hands of American consumers. Peter Singer argues this in his essay The Singer Solution to World Poverty. Singer supports his claim by his solution, which states “…whatever money you're spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away”. Singer believes this is our moral responsibility and those who don’t give aren’t morally sound.

        There is no way that Singer can force anyone to donate money, so for persuasion, he creates two hypothetical situations in his favor to help you decide if you want to donate or not. Bob parked his Bugatti by a railroad track and set out to take a walk. He saw a runaway train speeding down the tracks that was heading towards a small child.  Bob had the choice to flip a switch, which will redirect the train away from the child and towards his Bugatti.  Bob decided not to flip the switch and as a result the child died, but his Bugatti wasn’t harmed.  Dora persuaded a homeless 9-year-old boy to follow her to an address she has been given. She delivered the boy, received her reward, spent some money on a television set went home to enjoy. Her neighbor then tells her that the boy was too old to be adopted and that the plan was to sell his organs. Dora feels very conflicted, and decides to get the boy back. These situations pull on you heart strings and succeed for many in convincing them to donate. In my opinion, the argument loses its strength as the essay goes on and the reader becomes less persuaded to donate when Singer begins to demand that people donate every thing they earn that they don’t use for necessities. Singer says “We seem to lack a sound basis for drawing a clear moral line between Bob's situation and that of any reader of this article with $200 to spare who does not donate it to an overseas aid agency.” I think that this is offensive to many people because Singer is comparing people to a hypothetical situation in which a man chooses his Bugatti over a child’s life. I believe that there is a colossal difference in people who don’t save a child from dying before their eyes than giving $200 to charity. Secondly, I think that Singer’s quantification of philosophy isn’t sound. In his opinion, money is the key to solving world poverty although it is clear that there are other ways, such as new medicine or tools for purifying water, that save many lives. Singer states “…the formula is simple: whatever money you're spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away.” As stated earlier, Singer asked every able person to donate $200 of his or her money.  He said that with that $200 he could save a child’s life. In my opinion, I believe that $200 is a reasonable amount to ask of people who are wealthy and that most people would be willing to part with it if it meant saving a life.  Now, Singer has said that he wants every cent that you would spend on luxuries to go to charity.  This is an obscene demand that does not convince people to donate their money.

        Singer’s solution has a solution that works based on the monetary donations of Americans. I believe that Singer neglects the other ways that many people give to charity. Some people who don’t have money to donate give with their time. There are many programs for natural disaster relief that require the assistance of many volunteers. There are also many small companies that manufacture items that help those overseas. People are needed to help in that process as well. Singer’s idea that people should educate themselves in fields of higher paying jobs so that you will have more money to give away is illogical. For example, being a teacher isn’t the highest paying profession, so with Singer’s logic, the profession would become extinct and this would completely disrupt society. Singer supports his argument by saying “Because if you earn a lot of money, you can give away a lot of money, and if you're successful in that career, you could give enough to an aid organization so that it could employ, let's say, five aid workers in developing countries, and each one of them would probably do about as much good as you would have done.” By saying this, Singer makes the point clear that by choosing to be educated in a lower paying field you are part of the problem with world poverty.