Peter Singer's The Singer Solution To World Poverty

Jessica Brown
Eng. 96
S. Kim
April 21, 2014 What is World Poverty? In Peter Singer's "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" Singer is describing to us in his story that everyone should give up their money to save a child's life. In that statement, its not completely fair that we have to give away our hard earned money to help out kids. Think of it as this, lets say he put one in this type of situation, what would one think about it? Yes, it does make sense that one should help out and lend some money to help the children out, but not all of the money we've worked hard for to get. Finally with all this, one does not agree with Singer's proposal, its not fair that we have to give away our hard earned money to help out kids lives.
First of all, it doesn't make sense for only some of us donating or giving away our money just to save a life of kids we will never meet. Second, after all of this is over with how does one know if the money we worked hard for ourselves, will even go towards the kids to save their life and not Peter Singer himself. For example, in paragraph 3, he states "Donated to one of a number of charitable agencies, that money could mean the difference between life and death for children in need." An argument one would say, even if we donate money how do we know it will be going towards the kids in need and not someone else. Also donating money is fine, one agrees to help them out even for a little bit, but not giving all the money we worked hard to get and not spending any on us or even saving for emergencies. So how is one suppose to know that if one gives up their hard earned money savings, that it will go straight to the kids in need and its not just a joke. Singer expects one to just donate every single dollar one has and give it away to help the innocent kids, that they don't know. It doesn't make sense, like why does one have to listen to Peter and say yes and have to give up the money they have saved up. With all of this, one disagrees with this theory one doesn't think one should not have a choice to give up their own money just to help the lives of kids in need, especially if one doesn't even know if the
It seems as if Singer isn't giving us an obligation or choosing whether or not one has too. He makes it clear that if one wants to save the lives of a kid then one should give away all the money one has to offer and not use the money to use on themselves. Lets just say, one can't help but save innocent children's lives, one agrees one should, but one also agrees what if one needs money for an emergency but can't help the kids out because one is helping themselves out instead, would one still be a bad person? For example, in paragraph 23. Singer says, "Then, if we value the life of a child more than going to fancy restaurants, the next time we dine out we will know that we could have done something better with our money." Arguing towards this, one would say, the thing is that we have to give all our money to saving a child's life instead of going to dinner or spending any money for themselves. One completely disagrees, how would spending a little money for themselves making one a bad person, rather then saving some money for them, and giving some money away to help the kids. Why not do both, rather then give away all the money one worked hard to get. Another example of this would be, in "World Poverty and Our Obligation" Peter Singers argument is that "people are continuing to have luxurious items without helping other in need. we are not doing what we are meant to