Singer Solution To Global Poverty Rhetorical Analysis

1582 Words7 Pages

The position of Peter Singer on the subject of our moral obligation to aid those in need appears to be unquestionable at first glance; however, with further examination, Singer utilises arguments which, in my opinion, are weak and fundamentally impractical. It should also be noted that Singer himself does not follow his own principles as discussed in “Famine, Affluence and Morality” and his New York Times article, “The Singer Solution to Global Poverty”, contributing to the argument that his principles are impractical. In order to be methodical and fair, I will structure this essay in the following manner: first explaining Singer’s principles, continuing on to explain the points which I find to be lacking in his argument and concluding with …show more content…

One of Singer’s main and most stressed points was that whenever one has extra, luxury, money, they should not spend it on themselves (new clothes, new car, vacation etc.), but should rather give every penny of it away to those less fortunate. “That 's right: I 'm saying that you shouldn 't buy that new car, take that cruise, redecorate the house or get that pricey new suit. After all, a $1,000 suit could save five children 's lives.” (Singer, 1999) I firmly believe that if you work hard for a wage, you are entitled to the right to spend that money on whatever you deem fit, be that donating to famine relief or buying your children new bikes. To state that one does not even have a responsibility to give, but rather a duty to give away their income to the less fortunate is not only offensive to those living in a free world, but is also classist in implying that those who live in the lower class and below the poverty line are not fulfilling their ‘human duties’ in donating by saving what little extra money they have. In “Rethinking Peter Singer: A Christian Critique”, philosopher Anthony Daniels floats the idea that in order for Singer to be true to his own principles, he should withdraw all of his books from the market. For every copy of “Famine, Affluence and Morality” (for example) which is sold, Singer is, by his logic, directly causing the death or misfortune of someone in a dire situation by allowing someone else to use their money on something other than humanitarian