Thursday, January 28, 2016

Singer's Lack of Solution to World Poverty



In Peter Singer’s article “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” he gives to examples of dramatic situations where a person can choose whether to be selfish or selfless. Dora has to choose between a brand new television and a random young boy’s life. Bob has to choose between the car he spent his life savings on and a random child’s life. Singer says that everyone reading these two scenarios obviously agrees with the more ethical decisions. He also says that we have the opportunity to save the lives of children every day by donating all our disposable income to charity, however; most people choose more selfish things like cars, clothes, and other luxuries. Singer says that if we are buying unnecessary luxuries, we are entirely hippocritical.

Although I agree with his principles of selflessness and utilitarianism, his theories are impractical for multiple reasons. First of all, his analogies between the two scenarios and helping kids overseas does not work due to the emotional proximities he described in the scenarios. Humans clearly do not have any sort of emotional connection to people they do not know. We are much more likely to be generous in places where we see the positive outcomes, like giving gifts to our loved ones, to our communities or to local charities.

Singer’s argument also does not work due to the way our government and economy works. We live in a country based on capitalism and working hard to get a high paying job so we can be greedy and buy fancy things. I think the more realistic standpoint to have is a push towards socialism in our country. If we have a more equal distribution of wealth and government aid, we can have a culture with less focus on greed and the individual, but greater focus on equality and selflessness within the country. Socialism allows for utilitarianism without individual greed intervening.

I agree with Singer that instead of running to the stores to constantly consume, we should stop and ask ourselves whether we really need the items. However, Singer’s article is ineffective and extremely impractical due to the greed in our culture and the lack of emotional connection with less-privileged people we do not know. It is obvious that those with great wealth should donate money to improve the lives of others, but I don’t think this is a new concept at all.

6 comments:

  1. I totally agree! Singer's thesis, while very logical, lacks any realism and leaves a lot of loopholes. I wonder if his theory would work if the world was less greedy than it is today.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I love to your point about emotional proximity. I think that is the greatest fault in Singer's thesis

    ReplyDelete
  3. I love your post! This is something that I didn't think about and I think that you bring up some really good points. While I was reading his article, I did think that this would be a great idea, but how can we actually implement something like this in our society? His argument is good, but after taking a closer look, there isn't very much we can do.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Nice post Hanna! I agree that people naturally aren't close to strangers and as long as capitalism is the center of society Singer's solution is impractical.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think Singer's point was that emotional proximity shouldn't matter, but I see where you're coming from. Saying that is a lot easier than actually doing it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. As most people are saying, the whole idea is too unrealistic. Especially in our country and on the scale that Singer proposes, the idea wouldn't work.

    ReplyDelete