The Singer Solution to World Poverty

In “the singer solution to world poverty” peter singer uses thought experiments to convince us that donating to charity is morally required of us. Briefly explain the thought experiment and the way in which singer thinks it supports his thesis. Then either criticize singer or propose a better argument in favor of his conclusion Explain thought experiment:  Singer argues in his paper that since there are so many impoverished people in this world, everybody who is already living comfortably should donate their disposable income, that is income being spent on things other than necessities, to help save the lives of children.  In the Dora example, he argues that it is monstrous for somebody to sacrifice a child in exchange for new wealth, and in the Bob argument, he argues that it is morally wrong to preserve wealth at the expense of a child’s life. Singer compares us, the readers, to Bob because we are in a situation where we will probably never meet the child whose life is at risk, but in Singer’s opinion we are still obligated to save them.  Finally he concludes that since each time we buy something that is not necessary to our survival, we are spending money that could have helped someone else’s survival, and therefore it is immoral to spend that money on anything besides the preservation of someone’s life. Singer’s argument that people should donate all their excess money to the poor is illogical because it is impossible to gauge each person’s present and future needs simultaneously. Let’s say that the Smith Family makes an income of $100,000 annually. According to Singer, they would spend approximately $30,000 on necessities, so they would have $70,000 left over to donate. No more than a month after they donate this 70% of their income to Unicef, Mr. Smith is diagnosed with lung cancer (assume he does not have insurance). He must not only pay for medications and treatment but also quit his job because he is no longer able to do the labor it entails. Now the Smith family has half the income they used to, but many more expenses to cover. It suddenly becomes hard for them to upkeep their house, make their monthly car payments, and put food on the table. One could argue that the Smiths need their $70,000 just as much as those who received the money. We can learn from the Smith family the importance of saving money. Life is unpredictable, and we never know when having excess money saved up will come in handy. Donating all of a family’s extra money to charity is impractical because they may have a crucial need for it in the future, and then it will be too late. Is Mr. Smith more important than those people who would receive the $70,000? Importance is subjective, but one could argue that if Mr. Smith cannot afford a cure, he will die and obviously never be able to work again. But if he is cured and able to go back to work, he will have a yearly income that he could annually donate a portion of and be able to save many, many more people than the original $70,000 could. Singer only mentions donating money to the poor to save them. He fails to mention charities such as American Cancer Society or the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, where money donated would not directly save somebody, but it would be used to fund research to eventually find a cure for diseases that thousands of people suffer from. But money only goes so far; charities need volunteers who can donate their time and knowledge. In some instances, this is more valuable than money because there are some things that money cannot buy like care or companionship. So if people feel more comfortable saving their money than donating it, they could volunteer at a local hospital or adjourn across seas to assist those in need. Parts of singer’s argument that don’t work:  When people sell their possessions to donate to charity, is it immoral of a person to buy them instead of donating that money? Even though the money they used to buy it will indirectly go to charity?  What will we do with all the luxury items we have now?  Where do we draw the line between luxury and necessary o Example: a car is a necessity for someone who lives on the outskirts of town because they need to be able to get to work every day. If they buy a nice car, Singer would argue that they are immoral because they could’ve spent less money on their car and donated the excess to charity. But if they buy a junk car and it keeps breaking down, they need to spend extra money to keep fixing it. If they get into a car accident and the car isn’t strong enough to protect them, they then have to repair it and pay hospital bills. o Another example: some people would argue they need a TV/computer/phone in order to watch the news, communicate, stay informed, etc. which ones are moral? o Last example: in a house, how do you decide what furniture is necessary? Do you need 2 couches instead of a few folding chairs? Where do you draw the line?  Article mentions that if we do not donate to these children in need, they “will die preventable deaths” o Are these deaths really preventable? o Let’s say we donate the estimated $200 to save a “sickly” 2 year old’s life and as predicted by Singer, they are able to obtain enough food, water, clothes etc to become a healthy 6 year old. o Soon after their 6th birthday, they become diagnosed with an incurable illness and die before the age of 7 OR they live in such an unsafe area of the world that they are killed before they reach the age of 7 o In essence, the $200 was spent with a good intention (Kant) but it was wasted because it could have been spent on a child that would progress into adulthood o Singer may argue one of two things  We did all we could by spending the $200 to preserve the child’s well being  We should have donated more so the child could have avoided the situation (moved to a safer place) o If he argues the second point, how do we know how much to donate at the beginning? By the time we know the child died it is too late to donate more, but at the time we donated, we thought we gave the appropriate amount to save a child main points of criticism o diffusion of responsibility/removing oneself from situation o donate to other things such as research o parts of singer’s argument that don’t work ex someone selling something to someone and then donating that money I’d like to explore a situation mentioned in an article and some of its implications.  As mentioned in the article, Bob is walking by train tracks and sees a train coming. The train is approaching an intersection, where it will take one of two paths. On the first path, there seems to be a child stuck on the tracks, who will definitely be crushed if the train comes. On the second path however, is Bob’s vintage Bugatti that is representative of his happiness and his financial comfort after retirement. If Bob lets the train go, it will kill the child, but he can flip a switch and it will destroy the Bugatti. o As a bystander, if Bob simply does nothing he cannot be blamed in a court of law for killing the child (although he may feel internally guilty). It is even possible that nobody will ever find out this happened, and Bob can walk away and continue living a normal life. However, if he flips the switch he can be praised for saving the child, but the temporary effects of that praise will wear off and it is safe to assume Bob will never see the child again. The remainder of his life will consist of financial instability and uncertainty. So he can choose to remove himself from the situation completely and not flip the switch or he could proactively flip the switch and suffer the consequences. o The scenario would change if the railroad track, for example, was in the middle of Times Square. Bob may feel like he does not need to intervene because somebody else will; surely the moral thing to do would be to save the child, so he assumes somebody else will do it. Carol, Dave, and Emma are also bystanders in Times Square. They all see the scenario and want to save the child, but Carol assumes Dave will flip the switch, Dave assumes Emma will flip the switch, and so on. So nobody flips the switch and the child dies. But who do we blame? Each person in the situation is equally “at fault.” o This is the idea that many people have after hearing Singer’s argument. They think “Why should I have to donate my money when other people are perfectly capable of donating theirs? Surely someone will donate”  Someone with more money than me will donate  But then those people think “someone with even more money than me will donate” and so on  Where will they draw the line? Who will decide “I have enough money already, I can spare some for those in need?”  This is how diffusion of responsibility works; it happens very often in our society More diffusion of responsibility: There are 7 billion people in the world (find further divide how many are in poverty, etc) so each person individually has such little responsibility (probably less than .001%) over the rest of the people in the world ideas o If this were true, every time someone buys something that is not essential for survival, they are behaving immorally o There are so many people suffering but so many other people who are living middle to upper class that can survive without many of their possessions Ctiticism:  Diffusion of responsibility o Kitty Genovese example..?  Removing oneself from the scenario o Train example  5 people stuck on train tracks; 1 on one side, 4 on the other. Train comes and it can take 1 of the 2 routes. You, as an innocent bystander see that the train will definitely kill 1         person or definitely kill 4 people. Since 4 people is greater than 1 you choose for the train to keep going on its track to kill the one person so that 4 people can survive (utilitarianism)  might pull switch and might not you’re on bridge above train and it is definitely going to kill 4 people. You can push a fat guy to stop the train and not kill the 4 people, or you can let it be  less people would say they would push the person because that directly involves them in the situation it is important to save money because we never know when we’ll need it later so much uncertainty/unpredictability for the need for money that covers necessity holes in his logic..he donates 20% why not more? Other logical approaches for helping the poor Who’s responsible and illogical nature of how he thinks should be responsible Other causes besides poverty are just as needy Poke holes or give alternative that strengthens argument Singer argues that everybody should donate all of their excess income to the poor, but Singer himself only donates 20% of his own income. If he cannot practice what he preaches, it is unreasonable for him to expect everyone else to follow his request.