“The Singer Solution to World Poverty” by Peter Singer raises a thought provoking question to his audience—to give or not to give? Singer believes that acquiring luxuries is equivalent to letting poverty-stricken children starve to death. Extreme hypothetical scenarios of people who choose money and luxuries over a child’s life are prevalent throughout Singer’s argument and to further prove his point, he creates parallels between those people and people who don’t donate and claims that there is no moral distinction between the two. Singer’s straight-forward, but rather demanding proposition states that the money used to indulge in luxuries should go towards people in need instead. In an ideal world, Singer’s “solution” would be simple and noble. …show more content…
Singer’s formula states that “whatever money you’re spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away” (Singer 16). But do luxuries and necessities mean the same thing to different people? Is saving money for your children’s college fund a luxury or necessity? What about wanting to save money in case a medical emergency comes up, or you are laid off from your job? Giving away 70% of your earnings annually is extreme and too demanding as people’s motivation to earn and save money is so that they can live a comfortable life. Additionally, Americans are endowed with unalienable rights through the Declaration of Independence. “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” (UShistory). American’s are protected by these rights and are entitled to choose what they want to do with their money because they have worked hard for it. On another note, giving away money annually will eventually make the American economy crash as the economy relies on the money spent on our day to day necessities and luxuries. While only spending money on necessities, small family businesses and even large corporations that carry luxury items will all eventually cease to exist. It will disrupt the natural economic cycle and drastically increase unemployment