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.
I agree with you. Singer made valuable points about the importance of donating and the value it has, but also people have the right to choose what they want to do with their money. It's a difficult choice because if someone works hard for their money they may choose to live a lavish lifestyle with the money, but the people that are suffering most likely didn't choose the place where they grew up or forced these situations upon themselves (especially children).
ReplyDelete