In Peter Singer's piece, "The Singer Solution to World Poverty", the reader is forced to confront a rather uncomfortable reality. Are they in effect condemning a child, man, or woman to death by not offering up the surplus of their income to charity? Singer would argue yes, that there is no strong moral distinction between diverting an oncoming train to a child instead of their car, or refusing to send their excess funds to those who are struggling. It seems like people are finding fault with this article one, because it isn't a pragmatic solution to world poverty, and two, people have a basic right to the money that they've earned.
I don't think that Singer's statement is weakened by its absence of realistic application. That's not what I believe he intended to do. His main agenda was to set an abstract moral standard. One that isn't dependent on its practicality. As long as group "A" have a surplus they are not willing to share with the suffering group "B" then they are acting immorally. Singer argues that if you are not actively trying to solve the problem of world poverty, no matter how complicated and vast it is, you are contributing to the problem. The only reason that there isn't a pragmatic solution to this poverty is because people are either too greedy, or are caught up in what Singer calls follow-the-crowd-ethics. Too many people are assessing their morality relative to people who are similar to them socioeconomically and ethically, preventing any significant change.
Another major issue standing in the way of any progress is the entitlement people feel to their wealth. It's nice to think that your effort and intellect justify your wealth, but in reality wealth and opportunity are arbitrarily assigned. Your future wealth is heavily dependent on the conditions you are born into. To feel entitled to the benefits of the fortunate circumstances of your birth doesn't make much sense.
No comments:
Post a Comment