Pros And Cons Of The Singer Solution To World Poverty

The Singer Solution to World Poverty

Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics, wrote an article featured in The New York Times Magazine. “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” which explored Singer’s idea of taking all money which is not being used for necessities, from people across the world. This idea would, as Singer purpose, is supposedly supposed to solve the World’s poverty issue. However with an issue this complex, a solution is not always going to black and white, thus it is important to weigh the pros and cons before rejecting or endorsing this idea. Singer attempts to close this gap with the age old question of ‘why don’t we give the riches’ money to the poor’. The essence of Singer’s argument is obviously end world poverty. Probably the strongest point made in Singer’s argument is the involvement of the whole world. By taking this money from those across the world eliminates the opportunity for indifference. To stand with indifference is to stand with the oppressor. By forcing all those who have the means necessary give money, people would not only understand the scope of the issue and naturally become more aware, but in addition it would become a

Singer’s solution attempts to bring the world together and in turn take the excess money and provide it those who fall under the poverty line. By doing this, it eliminates the indifference those who are privileged enough that live with much more than the bare minimum. However, economically speaking, this would cause absolute chaos. Singer’s solution ignores the basics of economics that makes the world run smoothly today, in addition to this heis solution closely mirrors a economic system that has failed time and time again. “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” is too drastic to be implemented, economically speaking, however another solution to world poverty would prove to be more