As many people seem to have said, Singer's "solution" to poverty is completely unrealistic and going to work approximately, hm, never.
I don't really think that's the point, though. Singer is well aware that no one is actually going to donate everything they have to charity. The article isn't really trying to convince you to give away everything you don't absolutely need--that's not going to happen, no matter how persuasive the writing. It's to remind you that you always could be giving more than you already are. The point, as far as I can tell, is that people are complacent in their charity and that there aren't (according to Singer, anyway) any valid excuses for not doing more.
I think I mostly agree, to be honest. I really don't have any excuses for not donating more. I could definitely do just fine without half of my stuff. So, you might say, am I going to give it all away now?
Uh, no. But that doesn't really change that I should. I just won't. It's being selfish, and I'm fine with it, and so are 99% of the people who have excess to give. I just think we should also acknowledge that it is, to some extent, a little wrong and a little selfish. We're not all saints.
p.s. Marie Antoinette never said "let them eat cake," although she was completely clueless about the lives of the poor! Still didn't deserve to get beheaded for it, though.
I agree! Singer's solution is not realistic, but it shows people multiple ways that they could be a little more giving. No one is going to completely rid their lives of excess, but making small changes in our lives that allow us to donate more will add up over time. I think your post relates well to Lear and his comment that wanting more than we need is what makes us human. We are selfish and imperfect, but we are human.
ReplyDelete