The singer solution to world poverty - Essay Example

For this reason, the paper will dwell on the possible and unreasonable solutions stated by Peter Singer as a solution for world poverty. In brief, Singer believes that a person’s action will be judged by its result. As a utilitarian philosopher, he believes that Dora did the right thing in deciding to get the child back. In this manner, the moral issue here is that Dora was haunted by the fact the she was able to see the child, which caused her to feel guilty of her actions. Personal interaction was the most dominant difference between Dora and an American who will be donating.

However, Singer cited that if an American chose to donate $200 to charity rather than spending it on unnecessary things, he or she will be able to save five children from dying. In a personal level, the argument of Singer in act donating is agreeable because the expected result would be saving at most five lives of children in poverty. In an average, $200 is a little amount of money to spare in order to help other people, especially a child, to live. It is inevitable to be persuaded by Singer in this part of his argument especially in knowing that this amount will be sufficient for four years to help a sickly child be healthy when he or she comes to the age of six.

As a person, Singer’s argument holds much more than the consequences of a person’s action. It exemplifies a person’s capacity to help others, which is more profound rather than buying a new shirt with $200. On the other hand, in the later part of the text, Singer’s argument shifted from $200 to donating almost all of what is left after a family had spent for their necessities. He cited that an American household’s annual income is $50,000, and the annual expenses would be $30,000. Therefore, the average $20,000 left must be donated to charity.

Singer’s persuasion in donating had lost its point when he asked for every individual to donate all their extra wealth. In a personal level, when Singer’s argument headed on this direction, it became less persuasive because first, it became unfair. For one, donating the money of what is left after spending for necessities is unfair for the person who had worked hard to earn that money. It is by far saying that a person must work hard in order to save the lives of other people and not think of themselves.

Yes, the notion is realistic especially in seeing the statistics of death due to poverty. However, it is also necessary to note that an earning person must reward herself or himself every once in awhile. This reward can be as luxurious as having a cruise or as easy as getting massage. Aside from this, it is also beneficial for people to save for themselves. These savings will be essential especially in unavoidable and unexpected circumstances. This is not to say that a person must only think of the lives of the people they love, but this is saying that a person must be realistic enough to prepare for certain circumstances.

The persuasiveness of Singer’s article was shaken when he injected the argument on giving all that is left to others. The text lost its point and eventually, in a personal level, became illogical to follow. For an average person to donate $200 is acceptable. Donating all the excess money and wealth is already questionable. It is a fact that poverty must be combated with the help of people who are capable of helping. A child living in poverty must be