Singer's Solution

Peter Singer offers what he calls the Singer Solution to World Poverty, where he essentially calls on the wealthy inhabitants of the United States to donate portions of their income. Donating excess funds would not, Singer argues, detract from an American's standard of living, it would simply mean the difference between a lengthy vacation, a brand new TV, or a new car, none of which are essential. Americans would still be living a comfortably wasteful life if they donated portions of their salaries to charities (which you can get a deduction for on a tax return, which I am sure will entice some people).

I believe that the Singer Solution would likely work, but at this point in time, it would never even get started. The culture of America currently is too focused on material goods and consumerism to allow for selfless philanthropy with no personal gain. Popular culture is consumer culture in the United States, entirely centered around material gain. The most glaring example can be seen in most modern music that extols brand name items, designer clothes, expensive cars, and in general, money.

Circulating on the internet recently was a video of a man who found a dropped GoPro in the street. Several children asked if he was going to keep it, because they are expensive and fun, and his response was no, he was going to return it, because "it feels better to give it back." This quote highlights the greatest issue with Singer's proposed solution. Singer argues that it doesn't harm you to give up some of your money, even that we should feel obligated to do so, which is true, but this will 9 times out of 10 fail to cause a reaction in most people. Everyone who has ever done something kind without expecting reward knows how great it feels to work for someone else, and I think Singer's argument would benefit greatly from that perspective.