A Response to Singer’s Solution to World Poverty
What is poverty? Some say it is living pay check to pay check without being able to treat themselves to something nice while others only classify poverty as having no food or shelter. Through the years, world hunger and poverty has increased. Peter Singer, from the New York Times Magazine, writes in a very thought provoking manner about his solution to world poverty using bizarre examples to guilt his readers into donating money overseas. He states U.S citizens should use their extra money or savings to help the poor worldwide instead of using it on themselves. There are many parts in Singer’s solution that are agreeable, but certain ideas are a bit extreme.
Singer uses intense and somewhat moving examples to convince his readers to donate money to third world countries. He comes off a bit intimidating and provokes thought when he says,“ if the upshot of the American’s failure to donate money is that one more kid dies on the streets of a Brazilian city, then it is, in some sense just as bad as selling the kid to organ peddlers”(page2). In a sense Singer makes a point, not doing anything at all is wrong, but it cannot be compared to handing a child over to die. He tries to build guilt on his readers, either you donate money or you kill a poor innocent child. How much more extreme can he get?
What Singer failed to explain in detail is where all the money being donated will be sent to and who will be receiving it. How can the donor be sure the person in need is actually receiving all the money being sent? He should have emphasized on how exactly “$200 in donations would help a sickly 2 year old transform into a healthy 6 year old”(page3). Surely many people sending money overseas would like to know where exactly their money is going, and how it is being used to help a sick child get better. Singer should have focused on the details of the people in need and why they are in need, what caused them to be in...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document