Why Leaving The Decision Up to Humans is a Bad Idea

Peter Singer's article, "The Singer Solution to World Poverty", in the New York Times was beautifully written, taking a moral stand against the the uncharitableness of affluent humans. Except uncharitableness is, well, human. Giving to those in need whose circumstances are ordinary is simply not human. Most people pass by the homeless person begging on the street because he is ordinary. As people become used to the sight of homeless people, their sympathy for them wanes.

Humans are victims of probability neglect. We don't give proper weight to world crises that affect the most people. Instead, we focus on the crises that are in the public eye. People are more afraid of terrorist attacks than car crashes partly because terrorist attacks are publicized more. The same goes for charity giving. People give more money to endangered species such as the panda because these species have more of a public following. Public following, however, does not translate to the specie's relevance to sustaining a healthy environment.

Finally, as crises fade into the past, people forget about them even as the people affected by those crises are usually still in desperate circumstances. After Hurricane Irma hit Puerto Rico, Americans demonstrated their charitable side with an impressive number of donations. Of course, these acts of giving were spurred by the news reports of Puerto Rico's crisis and the unordinary nature of the disaster. After news coverage passed by, donations diminished. Now few people are donating to Puerto Rican relief even though most Puerto Ricans still lack working electricity and other basic needs.

Instead of Singer's attempt to guilt trip the readers of the New York Times, most of whom will quickly forget his article, humankind should approach charity giving from a different perspective: forcing people to do it. This practice isn't unheard of; in fact, it's engrained in our society. We tax people, and we should redistribute a greater portion of that tax-generated wealth to humanitarian aid. Simple. This approach is so much more effective because it transcends the nuisance of human nature. Government entities can better assess the crises that need the most aid than the average person, no matter how adamant that person might be in her philanthropic abilities. Government agencies are also less prone to forget issues that have passed in the news cycle. So, Puerto Ricans can continue getting the aid they deserve even though their problems are not currently in the public eye.

So instead of concerning yourself over how you'll spend your next dollar, let the government do it for you by taking a little percentage of that dollar and giving it to those who need it most. It's time for some big government to come back into our lives.