Comparing Peter Singer's Rich And Poor

Peter Singer’s argument in, “Rich and Poor” is that we have an obligation to aid those in developing countries who are starving. What he claims is that it is immoral not to aid them and yet most of us still make no effort leaving us to be considered ignorant. Throughout his argument he made great points by providing statistics, explaining the challenges of accessibility as well as the difference between spending excess currency on luxuries rather than aiding those in poverty compared to directly being held responsible for their deaths such as murder. Singer has made a sound case with his three premises, however this is where controversy in his opinion can arise. Specifically looking at premise three, a claim that only some absolute poverty can be prevented is what can become a

As stated in the text, absolute poverty is often caused by overpopulation of these areas (Singer, 150). With that being said, if we were to provide aid for these countries, we would only be aiding more people to be born into this life cycle. This is why as mentioned above, we would have to be selective in order to actually aid people and in the process it may actually lead to more population balances at the expense of an increased amount of deaths. According to the objection of triage, the rich should leave the poor behind to starve to death unless they want to be taken down with them. In order for the rich to survive, the sacrifice of the poor is a must. From a triage perspective, it may appear to be horrible but it also may be the solution we need to solve this long-term problem. Looking at Singer’s claim to aid those in absolute poverty it would only be seen as a short-term solution to a long-term problem. The triage perspective appears to be the most realistic solution when it comes to aiding those in poverty and although not everyone would receive aid, it would see it that everyone wouldn’t be reverted to absolute