Money

When I first read Peter Singers article, I didn't really know what to think. I didn't know what I was feeling so I took the rest of the day to just think about it and to read it again. The things that he talks about are good things to know. However, when I think about them they just make me feel bad about myself. For example, in the article where he talks about how you shouldn't spend your money on anything you want and that you should just help out the world by giving it to the poverty. This stuck with me because I have mixed feelings about that.

 I felt bad about myself because Peter Singers article goes on and goes about how we shouldn't waste all of over money on ourselves and that we should spend it on trying to end world hunger and trying to end poverty. Peter Signer's statement about that really made me think about it a lot actually. I both agree and disagree with his statement. I agree because you should help everyone out and it is for a good reason instead of just throwing your money away on something that won't really have a great impact in your life. I disagree with this in a way that maybe people work really hard for their money and they don't want to just give it up so fast like that. Of course, that's okay we cant just hate someone like that just because they don't want to give their money up but instead spend it on something they want or maybe even need. Peter Singer then finishes saying that you can do both of those things which are absolutely true. You can help end certain problems in this world by giving back to society and you can also spend money to reward yourself for that by treating yourself to something you really needed or something you just really want.

Needs Vs. Wants

After reading Peter Singer's, Solution to World Poverty, I felt guilty. It was insane to see how ridiculous the scenarios he wrote about and how they apply to everyone in our society. While there are people like us who live in a wonderful town and are somewhat privileged, their are people around the world who do not get to experience the same lifestyle as us. Singer's argument really struck with me because he focused on the fact that the privileged people in our society need to be giving back to the community and helping the less fortunate rather than turning a blind eye to world hunger and poverty. While Singer's argument hit me with guilt, I believe that some of his argument is valid and the other part is incorrect.

In his article, Singer believes that people with excess money that are being spent on items that they do not necessarily need should instead be given to help end poverty and world hunger. I think that Singer is right in everybody should be giving money to various organizations in order to help end these problems in our country. If the privileged people in society continue to not realize the importance of donating to this cause, the world will experience and even greater economic and social gap. People will continue to be hungry, without a place to stay, and without the proper care to survive. If people continue to not donate and help solve these issues then more and more people will die each day because another family wanted to buy a lake house or a new car.

With all this being said, there are some points to Singer's argument that I do not agree with. While I believe that everybody should be giving a portion of their money to help end world hunger, I believe that people also have the right to spend some their money on things that they want because they have earned the right to do that. People have earned the right purchase that new car or buy that bigger TV because they worked hard for it. If people had to give all of their excess money to help these world issues, then people would not work as hard and care less about their job. I also believe that when people are giving their money to these issues, there money should be used in a way that gives them the most "bang for their buck". Their money should be spent in a way that helps the most amount of people possible.

While Singer's argument is convincing and fills you with guilt, you have to look at the whole picture. Yes, everybody should be giving some of their money to help end world hunger and poverty but it should not be all of their money. It is also very hard to make everybody give some of their money. Their will always be people who will not want to give any of their money away and it would be very hard to create some sort of law where you have to give money to these charities.

Singer's Silly Solution

The response to "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" from an average reader:
I donate money to charity yearly!
What I do with my money has no affect on poverty on the other side of the world.
No one else gives all their "extra" money to charity, why should I?
How will I know if my money even gets to the planned target?
I deserve a new pair of shoes! I worked hard for my money!
But do the poor people in the world not work hard?
Do they not deserve as much as I do?
They are not inherently better or worse than me.
But how am I expected to give all my extra money away?
What even qualifies money as extra?
Is college extra?
Is law school extra?
Is spending money raising a child extra?
Does this mean I am a bad person?
But I deserve to use that money that I work hard to earn!
There is that word again.
Deserve.
Poor people don't deserve poverty.
But I deserve that new pair of shoes.
What?
I should probably start to give more to charity.
If I can save a life, I am willing to pay that 200 dollars.
But I will not sacrifice my own quality of living.
Yeah.
Maybe I will give a little bit more away.
But I'm still going to buy that new pair of shoes. 

Singer's Solution to Poverty

I really liked Singer's solution to world poverty, although it was quite provocative and blunt. Although the notion of Americans and the rest of the world giving up everything excessive except for the bare necessities in favor of money to charities is harsh advice, it does hold some merit in that it would most likely greatly reduce world poverty. However I have some concerns to this theory. This theory completely eliminates the idea of wealth or surplus besides food and shelter. This may seem melodramatic, but this could potentially slow down the evolution of society. If we applied this theory, we would eliminate technology which has helped civilization grow for centuries. Isn't part of evolving as a society finding things to do with our wealth and surplus other than living for basic survival? Although it does of course seem reasonable to donate money to children, I feel like donating until we all only survive with bare necessities is not a practical or ideal solution.

Singer and Poverty

With the growing problem of wealth inequality Peter Singer offers a solution, although it is somewhat controversial. His solution is that everybody who has any money to spare should give it to charity in order to alleviate global suffering, While this solution certainly seems like it could work, there are quite a few flaws. For one, it is a pretty unrealistic solution. Almost nobody in today's society would even want to give up all of their extra money to someone else. Many would prefer to split that money between things they want and charitable donations. In fact, the US donates more money to charity as a percentage of income then any other country. In addition, it makes no sense within our current economic system to even attempt such a solution. In any mixed market economy it makes no sense to give all of our money to charity because then there is no way to support most of the industries within the economy.

I think that the appropriate response to the crisis brought to light by Singer is somewhere along the lines of what we have been doing so far. Of course, there are still many problems in the world. But, the solution isn't to spend every cent not spent on necessities on charity. The solution, in my opinion, is to further encourage charitable contribution without saying that you need to give x amount in order to actually make a difference.

Why Can't We All Be Saints?

I believe singer's fundamental argument is that we have internalized the ideologies on which capitalism is based. We, like Bob and his Bugatti, believe we are entitled to all of our unnecessary possessions because we have bought them with our hard-earned money. Material possessions have become extensions of our identities (like the cars we choose to drive or the clothes we choose to wear) and have become increasingly difficult to part with. We are perfectly content with our excess.

In reality, we have simply gotten lucky. We live comfortable lives and have opportunities to make money because of where and when we were born. Humans' access to food, water, and shelter is based on something arbitrary. Singer's response is simple: no individual is inherently more entitled to the basic necessities of life than another. One's excess is another's deficit. I think most of us would agree, yet we are unable to shake the entitlement that capitalism has instilled in us.

Unless we actively work to uproot the system of capitalism from our lives, we are perpetuating it. We are all aware of its detrimental effects and its illusory nature. Singer's thesis is radical and idealistic, but it is only unrealistic if we want it to be. There is no reason why we can't all be saints.

Oceans Away

Peter Singer's article discussed what our obligations are to help people who are less fortunate than ourselves. He used a couple different metaphors to explain his point. Both metaphors, the one in which the woman has to decide whether or not to take back a boy she unknowingly gave to an organ peddler and the one in which the man has to decide whether or not to save his car or a distant child from a runaway train, can be easily compared to our personal decision of whether or not to give our money away to help dying people. However, it is hard for people to see it that way. We consider the woman a monster if she does not take the boy back and the man evil if he chooses to save his car over a child. Yet it is not often that people choose to give their money away to charities that could save a child's life instead of spending it on themselves. The children seem so far away that they hardly exist in our minds and we are always doubtful that our money will even do anything to help them. We are also stuck in the mindset that we don't need to give away our money because other people will do it for us. Why give $200 to a charity if someone across the country will give that charity $1,000? Someone else will always make up for our shortcomings. With that mindset, no money will ever be donated to charity and thousands of children's lives will not be saved. We all hope that we would choose to save the child over our car, but it's easy for us to say that while sitting at home on a nice couch with oceans obstructing our view of the endangered children. I agree with Singer's general argument, a privileged person does have an obligation to give a portion of money away to those who need it much more than them. But I don't know how much they should be obliged to give. As someone who lives off of my parents' income, it is harder for me to know what a good amount is. But I like the analogy of giving a substantial amount of money away to parts of Bob's body being amputated by the train. Eventually, the privileged person will no longer be living a comfortable life. If their life is more comfortable than the dying person in another country, should they continue to  give more? I'm not sure that I know the answer.

What is our obligation to give?

Singer presented a very interesting idea in his article, the thought of giving all of the money you spend on luxuries to international organizations that help and feed starving children. I agree with his belief that it is important to donate to these organizations, but I do not agree that people should give up buying things they enjoy completely. 

I do believe that a privileged person has some responsibility to give back, but not in the ridiculous amount Singer is suggesting. 

I think Singer does not touch on a very important point that I definitely believe in, the idea of not just giving your money, donating your time. Donating your time can be just as beneficial if not more so than just giving money, and if you are not willing to give so much money to an organization but want to still feel good about yourself morally, donating time is perfect. A person should not feel bad about themselves if they don´t want to give up all of their luxuries, it´s an interesting, but way to extreme of a proposal. 

Singer Hits a Foul Note

The argument that Peter Singer makes is not terribly complex, and is easy for many to understand: society must become less materialistic in order to solve poverty. He also demonstrates the hypocritical nature of the public through his example with Bob the Bugatti owner and the film "Central Station", showing how if the person were to ignore the dying child the public would look at them as a monster. He shows that although when ignoring charity one does not see the child die, they still should be looked at the same way because they are not helping someone in need.

But his argument stops being effective at this point. He then mentions how Americans need to reconsider their spending, and anything that is a luxury donate what would be spent on that to charity. But how is that realistic? We live in a society that would likely have some members rampage over a ten dollar tax raise that goes to helping the homeless. To put it bluntly, Singer's argument is invalid and ultimately naive. To think that people will stop being materialistic is unrealistic. I like charity as much as the next person, but I know I would find it very difficult to avoid any luxuries and instead donate to a cause. And I know that I am not alone in saying this. So while Singer makes a point that would be sensible if human greed was not in play, his argument is ultimately useless when it comes to applying it to society.

Singer's Not So Superb Solution

In the article "The Singer Solution to World Poverty", author Peter Singer attempts to analyze the differences in morality of certain individuals who, in his terms, chose to spend their incomes on novelties such as televisions and fast cars instead of on the poor and underprivileged who need it.  In order to build his argument, Singer uses the examples of several people, including a Brazilian woman named Dora from the film "Central Station" and a man named Bob.  Both stories involve children who are impoverished or endangered.  Dora chooses to save her child that she unintentionally put in harms way, while Bob turns a blind eye and intentionally let's his child die in order to save his own property.

While I was expecting Singer to make the cliché and expected statement that the examples given were more similar than different, and that both situations show that everyone should be donating their time and resources to help those affected by poverty, the author takes a slightly different route.  Singer himself actually distinguishes his examples from those who can afford to donate to charitable organizations, leaving the reader to decide for themselves whether or not a comparison can be made between themselves and the individuals in his examples.  Although Singer does suggest that people take a second thought before going out and spending $200 dollars on a dinner at a lavish restaurant, for the most part he leaves the end opinion up to the reader.  I myself have no problem with society spending their own hard-earned incomes on items of novelty.  This is one of the standing principles of meritocracy.  And while I don't exactly agree with the idea that the amount of money one possesses should have a direct impact on the status one holds in society, I do realize that this is how the majority of the general public views the concept.  Saying that the upper echelon of society should be the sole group responsible for providing a trickle-down of wealth to those in need is a stretch, but I believe the burden falls on those who are both willing and able to contribute to the well-being of the less fortunate, rather than all of the population's income that is not used on necessity like Singer suggests.

A Single Solution to World Poverty?

In Peter Singer’s “Singer’s Solution to World Poverty,” he suggests that people need to consolidate their belongings into necessities and start giving more to charities and non-profit organizations. The examples he presents are people deciding to save their new and expensive car or saving a child they do not know. I think Singer has a valid argument when he mentions that some people are ignorant and selfish, but at the same time some of his ideas are unrealistic and cannot apply to every person. Not every person has the same surroundings, so the fact that Singer makes the argument that every person should be donating their excess is a little false. Families might need bigger homes to accommodate more people. People might need to eat a little more to work a little longer and harder. I think there are some people that spend too much on unnecessary objects and luxury items. I know that some people are put in awful situations where they have an extremely difficult time getting out of their situation, but what about those who actually put in work so they can live in a more luxurious life. Do those people not get a reward for their success and work? I guess some could argue that those people then know the hardships and should be donating even more to get those people on their feet. I think this argument could go on for a while with many pros and cons. I think the overall thing is that people need to be more conscious of their spending and realize that there are people who are in a worse situation. I think there are too many unanswered questions after Singer’s argument that there isn’t a clear solution to world poverty and I don’t think there will ever be a single solution to the issue. I do like that Singer says everyone is in this dilemma. People having to choose new possessions or helping people. People make that decision consciously and unconsciously and make it everyday. I think people have moments when they realize how fortunate they are, which then they are willing to give up on a possession or idea (but for the most part they do not follow through). While Singer’s idea that people should constantly give money or time to an organization, it is unrealistic and people are unconsciously selfish and too ignorant to donate to those organizations.  

Money...Morality...Mutual Recognition?

Peter Singer, in his article, "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" proposes a radical solution to poverty. He argues that instead of indulging on the the many spoils in life such as fancy clothes, cars, and vacations, we should give our non-essential income to those less fortunate. Singer gives an example of two people, Bob and Dora, who choose to enjoy a luxury rather than help a poor stranger. I thought they were being selfish, but according to Singer I am just like Bob and Dora. He explains that those of us with excess money are faced with the same type of decision everyday and we choose ourselves by not giving to charity. Singer's grand solution is to make giving all unnecessary income to charitable organizations and those living in poverty a moral obligation. 

Defining redistribution of wealth as a moral obligation raises many problems. First, Singer's argument is more homogeneous in a socialist society rather than a capitalist one. Second, "moral obligations" are tricky. I think unless enforced by law, it won't happen. For example, I would like to think people wouldn't kill one other because it's morally the right thing to do, but without a law forbidding it, would there still be less murder? It's a negative view of human nature but it's just a thought. 

In addition, the article made me think of mutual recognition. Many people have commented on the fact that it's human nature to not be close to strangers and be unwilling (at first) to give money. I agree. Giving money to unseen people fourteen hours away does not seem as fulfilling. Although giving a large portion of your earnings is a start to a more even "playing field", the action is not mutual recognition. Our society has an attitude of it's a "burden" for "us" to give to this "other". Until you change people's minds about what kind of world they want to live in, Singer's solution won't work. I wish for a day the world will achieve mutual recognition, but I can't envision the road map to get there. 

Overall, Singer has an over-arching idea right: Some have more than they need and others don't have basic needs fulfilled. Excess should be redistributed. But what is excess? When does one stop giving? If I were to make a six figure salary I would try to give as much as I can, but easier said than done. Similar to discussions about gender and racial equality, violence, and more, the discussion on morality and poverty does not end in one class period or one article.