1. The Singer Solution to World Poverty Britney Bowers Ethics_PHIL1014 Teacher: Mr. J Sampson November 23, 2017

2. Discussion on the content of the Singer Solution In the essay “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” philosopher Peter Singer addresses the issue of poverty by suggesting Americans give away most of their income to aid those in need. Singer believes that withholding income is the equivalence of letting a child starve to death. Therefore, Singer suggests the ethical thing to do to end world hunger is to give up everyday luxuries. Although donating a vast amount of money could help dying and starving children, Singer’s proposition is not only unrealistic but also too demanding for everyday Americans who have responsibilities of their own. Singer begins his essay with Dora, a schoolteacher, who sells an orphan awaiting to have his organs sold in a black market for a new television set. Eventually, Dora regrets her immoral decision and rescues the boy from his fate. Singer describes a hypothetical situation in which Bob has invested his life savings in an uninsured car – a Bugatti – which he parks on a railroad siding before going on a walk. Bob sees that a distant child is playing on the railroad tracks in the path of a runaway train. Rather than using a nearby switch to divert the train onto the siding, Bob chooses to allow the child to die (throwing the switch and sacrificing his car is the only way that Bob can save the child). In Singer’s view, Bob was wrong to make this choice, and most of us would not hesitate to condemn him for it. Bob was wrong, according to Singer, because he could have –but did not-- save the child’s life by sacrificing his Bugatti, which is only a luxury and is less valuable than the child’s life. Singer claims that Bob’s situation is analogous to our own. We have the means to save the lives of starving children by sacrificing some of our luxuries and donating money to organizations like UNICEF. But, like Bob, we choose not to sacrifice our luxuries to save the lives of children. Therefore, like Bob, we are not living up to our moral obligations. Singer uses Bob and Dora, two individuals who chose money and objects over children, and compares them to his audience. He even goes as far as to compare the lack of help Americans give starving children in Africa to Nazi Germany and those who did nothing to stop the Third Reich. He bases his logic on what the moral thing to do is. Singer attempts to guilt trip his readers by giving examples of life and death situations, in which lay in the hands of immoral people. Although Singer does mean well and wants to make a difference for those whose lives are at risk, his solution to is too demanding for everyday people and his authoritative deliverance in not very persuasive. Furthermore, Singer not only expects too much, but doesn’t realize luxuries and necessities mean different things to different people. Singer overwhelms the reader by stating one number to expecting a lot more. Singer fails to mention how much people struggle in America alone. Sure, it would be great to end world hunger, but what about giving to those in need in the US? According to Unicef, the United States has the second highest population of child poverty in the list of developed countries, (Unicef). Although it would be wonderful to be able to help all in need, sometimes it isn’t possible when Americans are struggling themselves to pay bills and raise their own. In conclusion, although Singer does have a good meaning behind his essay, he fails to persuade his audience as to why we should be giving all our surplus wealth away by being too demanding.

3. Discussion of the activity We are living in a capitalism society; we have been taught money is everything, and learned to emphasize the rich people since we were young. Being rich means you can live in a luxury life, such as driving new car, eating in an expensive hotel, having the latest technology. I found this less convinced by Singer’s argument after I’ve experienced what it’s like to make the changes that he recommends because his is the dream of the most of us; earning more money and be rich is our motivations of working hard. It is also the reason for the growth of the society. But all the sudden, Singer is telling us to give all our money away. That’s insane! Then why should we be working hard? People will only willing to work and earn enough money for their necessary since they will not be able to enjoy the extra money they earned. And even if we are so generous and giving all the money beside our necessities away, other problems will be cased. First, less or no money have been spending on luxuries, companies will not be able to earn money or maintain their cost. Then the companies will start to lay off employers and people will lose their jobs, and will only case more poverty problems. On the other hand, since the poor will be able to receive money by doing nothing, why will they work? Therefore, reflecting on all those ideas it was harder than I anticipated it to be to give up purchasing any luxury item, consuming meat products. Singer solution toward the poverty was not successful for me. And I believe some degrees of money should be spent on luxuries because it has a latent function to keep this society prosperous. There is also a fundamental moral difference between Dora selling a kid (who is to be killed for his organs) in order to get a TV, and us buying a new TV set instead of helping starving children because Dora is doing something which would be considered morally wrong, on the other hand buying a new TV set is providing our necessities and whosever children is starving they should take up the responsibility to care for their children. Many people are vacationing at beach resorts —so much of their income is being spent on things essential to them that can be given to organizations like UNICEF or Oxfam America.... In all these respects, Bob's situation resembles that of people able but are unwilling. Peter Singer has argued in Practical Ethics (1993) that you are morally deficient if you eat meat,... If you take Singer's arguments seriously, you should be giving nearly everything you have to charity.... We could end all their suffering by eliminating the lions..... Perhaps at some point you'll think 'Why does this all fall on me? And this would drive me to the point to morally legitimated to stop giving.

4. Evaluation of the Singer Solution, and discussion on the moral depth, and recommendations. Include social factors/cultural factors. Eradicating world poverty has always been a priority. However, in spite of numerous efforts to do so, some strategies have not always been the best, even Peter Singer’s. Like all things, there are flaws and criticisms. Americans believed in their unalienable rights: “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” They have worked for their money, paid high taxes for the right to live in this country; therefore, they should be entitled the right to do whatever they want with their money. Questions by critics are raised, “Why are we Americans to blame? What about the governments of the countries where these poor children live?” In addition, they argue that the economy is dependent on the Americans’ expenses. If Americans don’t spend money on expenses, businesses and factories will be closed; then the unemployment rate will rise. Therefore, Singer’s idea is set aside as more nonrealistic than pragmatic. Those that think that they shouldn’t work hard and give their money away because it is morally right must not have been through poverty. Even the sight of destitution and filth is unimaginable and tragic. Poor children, old men, and single mothers desperately begged for money to people passing by, with plead and hope in their eyes. On a personal note, I’ve been through poverty. I experienced hunger, lived in decrepit shelters, and read books under the candles. As Singer implied, Americans are spoiled; we have become materialistic, fulfilling the “American dream”, while ignoring the millions of destitute lives. Some say they work hard and deserve the reward of spending it. Is the fact that of saving a person’s life not good enough? Even though Singer’s solution was desirable but idealistic and impossible, he did raised the concern of the poor. We corporate a little of his idea; we should donate money- not too much that it would cause a drastic change in our economy- but a little can make a difference since about 80% of the world population lives on less than $2 a day. In addition, the U.S. poverty-focused development assistance currently totals about $28 billion; this amount represents less than 1% of the federal budget. People are born in poverty. Poverty kills. It is not only the people but the government, which possesses much more global control that should make an effort to save the millions of hungry lives. Singer leaves his audience with unanswered questions about what is moral and what isn’t. The article comes across as a bit confusing and assertive towards the audience at the end. I can only speak for myself in saying that Singer’s article begins to anger me, the need to understand why Singer believes that everyone should give away their surplus wealth they strive so hard to attain is mystifying. If Singer had not pushed his demands in asking for half a middle-class family’s income and stick to the affordable $200, the questions that each reader is searching to be answered would not be such a difficult task. For social factors, discrimination would be the variable that causes poverty. Racial discrimination from an employer could lead for that person to not receive a higher paying job, in which could lead to violence from the potential employee towards the employer. In turn crime could be committed in rejection of the employer. Thus the social factor of violence interconnects with the economic factor of crime. Also racial discrimination could lead to institutional discrimination. Thus this will lead to substandard schools in which teachers are told to split up a class and place each student in a designated group depending on their race and the teacher’s assumptions of the student’s learning ability from their social classifications.

5. Responses to guiding questions