Response to “Singer’s Solution to World Poverty” by Peter Singer
Peter Singer may believe he has World Poverty all figured out but there are a few points he’s not thinking about. He used emotional stories about dying children to guilt his readers into giving money. He makes a few good points but he’s not thinking about the situational distress of the person dying in front of you versus someone dying overseas, where you would never know. I believe he is impractical in his findings, justifiably through persuasion of belief, that a child in dying in front of you is less heartfelt than a child you most likely will never read about in a local news paper. Also, he’s not putting into consideration the economical distress of our government, and the jobs that will be lost, leading to the next economical downfall of America.
In his essay, he states “All of which raises a question: In the end, what is the ethical distinction between a Brazilian who sells a homeless child to organ peddlers and an American who already has a TV and upgrades to a better one —knowing that the money could be donated to an organization that would use it to save the lives of kids in need?” Though, Peter Singer makes a valid point that we should be helping children in need, what happens when everyone stops blowing their money on useless things like TVs? If we were to spend only money on necessities and donate the rest it would, in turn, cause economic distress. Jobs will begin to slowly deplete from our own economy here in America. Manufacturing jobs such as, furniture, computers, televisions, housing, retail, and many more would disappear. There wouldn’t be enough jobs to keep our economy running smoothly. The job market would collapse. Labor would fall. Commodities would become scarce. If we as consumers are not buying these products, then in turn, we are killing our own children and putting our own families into poverty. In another part of his essay, he says “Is it the practical...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document