What if there was a way to limit or even eliminate world hunger? What if there was a way to get medicine to all people in need around the world? Whatever way we would take would cost nearly a fortune. Now, however, we shall shift our paradigm of thought. Do Americans take in too many luxuries? Can we stand to give some away? Perhaps, if we eliminate luxury expenditures, we can in turn all but eliminate the need for food and hunger around with world with money we have saved. The dent put in those needs would be marvelous. This is what Peter Singer believes, but the question is this: is it worth it?
There are several pros to Singer’s belief. One of these is that this idea appeals to morals. To give up luxuries for the good of overs
…show more content…
You don’t know whether or not all this money that you’re sending will actually get to the spot which you meant for it to reach. Humans are naturally greedy and invested in their own self-interest, and when the flow of money starts increasing, the likelihood of someone along the chain slipping some amount of cash into their own pockets is very high. Another one of the cons is that the likelihood of people agreeing to this willingly is very low, and it would be hard to rally support, as people like to keep at least some of their possessions. A full removal of all luxuries from the lives of everyone with luxuries would take time and honesty, the latter of which may be far too uncommon. What’s more, most of the United States economy flows on entertainment, such as movies and sports. The con to be derived from this is that the United States economy will plummet into the gutters with the removal of luxuries. A large portion of the jobs that make significant amounts of money run through entertainment, meaning that this shunning of luxuries will lead to a lessening of money that could potentially be sent over to places of need. But these cons can be overcome, just with a different degree of luxury