Jeez Dude, ¨Thanks¨ for Killing Three Billion People Minus One

In Singer´s evaluation on the nature of charity and suffering, he manages, in few short pages, to both make us hate ourselves even more than we already do and discredit the value and appreciation of generosity in the modern world. In an attempt to be edgy or controversial, Singer presents to us an article that screams at us to donate more, while somehow managing to be completely devoid of the compassion, humanity, and appreciation that is the foundation of charity and giving.

Let´s say we are presented with impoverished child ¨x,¨ ¨y,¨ and ¨z¨ thousands of miles away from the ´comfy´ lives we live.  I could and donate $600 to ¨save¨ them all this instant, end of story. In the eyes of my peers, I would be a saint. I could donate $400 to save two of them or $200 dollars to save one and I would still be perceived as deservedly generous.

In Singer´s article, however, he seems to suggest that donating anything less than that $600, would be selfish (assuming it is a sum of money unnecessary to my own survival). From my eyes, when I donate $200 dollars, I am saving 1 child. Singer, however, would argue that by only donating $200, I am ¨killing¨ two children. This criticism is more absurd when you realize there are not just 3 but in fact 3 billion impoverished people in the world. Being shamed to the extent which your generosity is displayed like Singer berates us for completely undermines the compassion you are showing to give to the needy in the first place. Imagine how disheartened and underappreciated you would feel if, after making a $200 donation to UNICEF, you receive a snide, sarcastic letter in the mail saying something along the lines of:

Jeez dude, ¨thanks¨ for killing 3 billion people minus 1

Or after you generously place $10 in a donation box by the cash register at a 7-11...

Look at you Mr Generous, saving one-twentieth of a life when there are sixty billion twentieths of lives left to suffer.

Singer uses the hypothetical train and Bugatti situation, in one variation, to ask how much of an individual sacrifice would be justifiable for saving an impoverished child´s life (A finger? A hand? An entire arm? A life´s savings?). Whats to be said about my $200 being used to save child ¨x¨, ¨y¨, and ¨z¨ for 16 months each rather than saving any single one of them for 4 years? How do we compare days of lives to full lives like Singer compares sacrificing extremities for them? After all, The ways to divide up a $200 donation are endless. Is ¨saving¨ 1,460 people for one day more ¨valuable¨ then saving one life for 4 years? How about ¨saving¨ 35,040 people for 1 hour? This factor is ultimately left up to the procedure of the individual charity.

But wait, by Singer´s logic, do we now ridicule these generous charities for being judge, jury, and executioner with people´s life just like he seems to criticize Bob for choosing to save the Bugatti over the child? UNICEF is at the same hypothetical turnpike of the railroad as Bob, only this time, instead of a Bugatti on the other end, there stand 1,460 starved individuals a day´s worth of track away. Much like Bob choosing between the Bugatti and the boy, lives are still at stake pending the beholder´s decision. You may be thinking that the two situations are different because UNICEF has to kill someone while Bob doesn´t. But what if Bob had been planning to sell his 2.5 million dollar car to donate to charity. That is over 12,000 lives that could be saved, or alternatively one child. There isn´t a right choice when faced with this situation.

Even if Bob kills the child to keep the car for his own gain, I challenge Singer to look Bob in the eyes and give him the finger as he drops a dollar in a homeless man´s McDonald's cup the next day, or opts to add $2 to his CVS bill to provide antibiotics for 5 kids in Africa. The point is, there are a bunch of absurd hypothetical involving extent of generosity, selfishness, lives saving, and fragments of lives saving. My analysis intentionally and satirically, dives into many hypotheticals, much like Singer´s article seems to become lost in them. We can ridicule people for their choices when faced with impossible or implausible situations, or for not giving everything they can to help others, or we can all be thankful for their kindness and humanitarian intentions. And I don´t mean this in an uptight, ¨be happy that I´m giving anything at all¨ kind of way. I´m just here to point out the very nature which charity is built on, and something that Singer fails to mention at all in his article; the spirit of giving.

So Singer, maybe I go donate some money. Maybe it´s not a life saving, or maybe it´s not even $200, but when I do, you can sure as hell bet I will feel good about doing it. Helping someone in need and feeling good in doing so, absurd! How dare I feel proud for a commendable act of generosity. Maybe the best method to get people to do good isn´t by making them feel horrible about themselves. In the end reader, I just want to remind you that your charity is a light to your humanity and an agent of good, just in case you forgot that fact while being berated by Singer´s article like I had.