“The Singer Solution to World Poverty”
“The Singer Solution to World Poverty”
World poverty has existed for many centuries and still exists today, gradually expanding and intensifying. This is the topic that Pete Singer, a professor of bioethics, calls attention to in his article “The Singer Solution to World Poverty.” Singer claimed that the solution was simple; “whatever money you’re spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away.” Considering Singer’s “solution” a controversial point arises between an idealistic, utopian, and morally just point of view and a realistic, pragmatic, and plausible point of view. Singer’s solution, although righteous and ethical, is not probable and thus would not be effective in curing world poverty. The few pros of Singer’s proposal are, at first glance, important and convincing. The money, prospering individuals are spending on luxuries, can total to a great amount, which can help pay for food and medical aid for the poor. With an increase of food and medicine, the rate at which children and adults die due to starvation and lack of medical help, can quickly decrease. Nations will less frequently struggle with high mortality rate among newly born and children as well as among adult people suffering from curable diseases. In addition, the donated money can allow for the improvement of educational opportunities for all individuals, which can result in advanced technological, scientific and humanities-focused research and discoveries. Ultimately, Singer’s utopian idea of a cure for world poverty, promises a developed, healthy, and educated world. Although Singer deals with morality and righteousness, one cannot help but criticize Singer’s idealism and naivety and resort to realism, practicality and plausibility. The first issue that comes to light when attempting to execute or enforce this “solution” is the unknown borderline between luxury and necessity. In reality, it would be impossible for every prosperous person to agree upon what is and what is
World poverty has existed for many centuries and still exists today, gradually expanding and intensifying. This is the topic that Pete Singer, a professor of bioethics, calls attention to in his article “The Singer Solution to World Poverty.” Singer claimed that the solution was simple; “whatever money you’re spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away.” Considering Singer’s “solution” a controversial point arises between an idealistic, utopian, and morally just point of view and a realistic, pragmatic, and plausible point of view. Singer’s solution, although righteous and ethical, is not probable and thus would not be effective in curing world poverty. The few pros of Singer’s proposal are, at first glance, important and convincing. The money, prospering individuals are spending on luxuries, can total to a great amount, which can help pay for food and medical aid for the poor. With an increase of food and medicine, the rate at which children and adults die due to starvation and lack of medical help, can quickly decrease. Nations will less frequently struggle with high mortality rate among newly born and children as well as among adult people suffering from curable diseases. In addition, the donated money can allow for the improvement of educational opportunities for all individuals, which can result in advanced technological, scientific and humanities-focused research and discoveries. Ultimately, Singer’s utopian idea of a cure for world poverty, promises a developed, healthy, and educated world. Although Singer deals with morality and righteousness, one cannot help but criticize Singer’s idealism and naivety and resort to realism, practicality and plausibility. The first issue that comes to light when attempting to execute or enforce this “solution” is the unknown borderline between luxury and necessity. In reality, it would be impossible for every prosperous person to agree upon what is and what is