Tuesday, January 30, 2018

A Solution to World Poverty - or a Continuation of the Status Quo?

Peter Singer's "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" was, to say the least, an interesting read for me. His provocative central claim is something I'm still thinking about now, and I know it'll be in the back of my mind for a while. Overall, the article made me consider my own ethics, and the way they can be improved. However, it ultimately led me to a deeper inquiry. My response to Singer would be, "To what extent is it the responsibility of an individual to remedy problems like world poverty?" If I donate all my money to saving children in poverty, am I not contributing to the deaths of, say, children with chronic illnesses? Where does my moral duty start, or end?

I found it interesting that in Singer's article, there was only one paragraph that focused on various governments, comparing the gross national product of certain countries. Additionally, he mentioned "wealthy" and "comfortably off" Americans, but neglected to write about those who are grossly rich - so much so that, in 2017, they could have ended extreme poverty seven times over.  By turning the vast majority of the attention onto the "average" person, what happens to the people and institutions that most directly contribute to world poverty? In this way, Singer's argument is worded most like many popular campaigns for 'saving the Earth.' It's too easy to tell people to recycle or turn off the lights when they leave a room while neglecting to recognize that the vast majority of pollution and exploitation is done by big businesses.

Yes, institutions are comprised of individuals. Additionally, I do not ask this question to absolve myself or anyone else of responsibility for world poverty. I understand that I'm complicit in these systems. I'm fortunate enough to not worry about if I'll have enough to eat every day, and I know that my lack of understanding of hunger from a personal standpoint has prevented me from donating as much money as I should to hunger relief organizations in my life. There is always room for self-improvement, and to exclude oneself from donating will achieve nothing, as Singer states. My purpose for writing this is to create more of a dialogue, and I'm always open to new interpretations. But for right now, I wonder how different this discussion of world poverty would be if the people with the most power could utilize both their financial and practical resources to end it, as well as the rest of us. Addressing this issue from an institutional standpoint may be a more effective solution.

2 comments:

  1. I love the point you made about the institutions that allow world poverty to continue. The parallel you made with environmental campaigns is accurate and it really helped me understand your point. It doesn't matter how many people donate how much money if we do not understand the actual institutionalized causes of world poverty.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Reading this helped me to understand why this article irked me so much - like you said, all the responsibility is being placed on the average person who only has so much leverage rather than turning to the institutions with actual power (like government, big corporations) to help in much larger ways. Sure, I can probably be doing more - but me giving everything I have would still be a fraction of the percentage of the change that could come around from something like Apple donating even part of its yearly revenue to charity. The fundamental flaw in Singer's plan is expectation of individuals to solve an institutional issue.

    ReplyDelete