Analysis Of The Singer Solution To World Poverty By Peter Singer

In “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” by Peter Singer, he argues that if the money not spent on necessities of life were donated, “that money could be the difference between life and death for children in need.” He makes note of the fact that so much of our income is spent on things that are not essential to life, and that if we were to donate the money we did not have to spend, we would help many children in need. Singer gives many theoretical examples such as, a Brazilian woman giving away a child whom she knows is going to be killed, just to get $1,000 that she spent on a new TV. Another example would be, Bob having the choice between a train smashing his Bugatti or killing a kid who doesn’t hear the train, and Bob decides to save his car and not the kid. Singer states that although those actions may have seemed awful, we Americans do the same, just without having it directly in front of us like Bob and the Brazilian woman did. If we were to donate $200 we would be able to save one child’s life, and for the average American, $200 is still not a large donation compared to what they could afford.

Singer used this great example, a household bringing in $50,000 a year, spends roughly around $30,000 on necessities alone, leaving $20,000 that could be donated; therefore stating, “Again, the formula is simple: Whatever money you’re spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given