In his article, Peter Singer explains that one way to get rid of world poverty is to donate 1/5 of your annual income to charities that help those suffering from poverty. His solution is very simple: give any excess money you might have to charity. If you don't, it is equivalent of Bob's decision to let a train run over a child rather than his Bugatti.
I remember reading a little bit of this in Philosophy last year, and I felt super guilty after I read it. Singer's argument is very logical and might work. But it is very unrealistic. It is unrealistic to expect every person on earth to donate their extra money to charity and I don't even know how such a law could be enforced peacefully.
Also, even if people did follow this rule by donating all their extra money to charity, the issue of world poverty would not be solved in the long run. Even with generous donations, I feel like the money will never be enough. And while standards of living will be higher for many, people will always demand more.
I like Singer's thesis. But, I think it is too idealistic to be applied to the complexities and messiness of the real world.
I agree that his theory is a little unrealistic. Of course, I would love for there to be such a simple solution to solve poverty, but we have not found it yet. This is a nice start, though. I think that people in general have way more than they need, so donating extra money to charity rather than buying unnecessary goods is still the way to go.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to imagine everyone with excess wealth giving it away out of only the kindness of their hearts coupled with philosophical logic. Like you said, Singer's thesis may be incompatible with the complexities of the real world.
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing! I think the order and structure of money in society needs to be reconsidered before we even think about Singer's idea. It's not realistic indeed and donating a certain part of your income wouldn't magically end poverty or children's deaths. Privileged people should definitely be selfless and considerate but they aren't obligated to donate a certain amount like Singer compares it to saving a child from a train. It's morally wrong to watch a child get killed but it's not morally wrong to eat out with family instead of donating.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. However, I don't think Singer was saying we should make it a law to give. Just that we should give. Which is true if we can afford to, but not to the extreme like Singer suggest.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read Singer's article, all I could think about were tax brackets. What would happen if giving to charity did become a law? I feel like that would exclude all other types of charity and service work
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, and I think your final two sentences sums up my thoughts on the article. While it's a good theory, it's just not going to work in the real world.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, and I think your final two sentences sums up my thoughts on the article. While it's a good theory, it's just not going to work in the real world.
ReplyDeleteYour post was really interesting! My favorite line was "And while standards of living will be higher for many, people will always demand more." It seems like no amount of donation will ever be enough. It's an issue of morality on both sides. How much are people willing to donate? When will people be happy with what they receive? If this cycle continued enough and money were almost equally distributed, would anyone donate? Who would be morally allowed to get the excess they desire? While I don't think Singer's solution is realistic, it's interesting to think about what would happen if everyone donated as much as Singer proposed.
ReplyDelete