Category: The Singer Solution to World Poverty

Introduction

Singer’s use of extreme hypotheticals to indicate how we should donate our unnecessary belongings, money, and time appeals to the emotional and logical sensibilities of the reader, but it creates a gray horizon because there is no direct explanation of what is considered a necessity, nor is there a law that states that one is obligated to donate. Despite Singer overshooting his argument, we should value the livelihood of the poor because prosperous nations have grown too accustomed to lavash living. Hardin’s “Lifeboat Analogy”, like Singer’s hypothetical situations aims to frame the complex problem of global need in simple terms for readers through analogous thinking, but he too oversimplifies his analogy along with skewing a fact that he bases his argument upon. While both writers to succeed in helping people conceptualize the powers of global poverty their arguments, because their analogies and metaphors are oversimplified, it makes them insufficient. Yet, we can take points from each argument to provide a sensible explanation for world poverty.

To address some shortcomings of Singer’s essay we must look into the metaphors he chooses to express his point, the gray area of what is considered a necessity, and the fact that Singer conveys his argument through the ideology of marxism. Throughout his whole argument, Singer masterfully argues his point using language and logic that appeals to the readers emotions. Singer’s proposition is simple when said, but not when done. He proposes that whatever money or goods is left over after one provides for what is needed, should be donated to charity. The logic behind this is that then with this proposition constantly being achieved there will be more resources available for less wealthy nations to use, balancing out consumption and growth of all nations. The issue here is we do not know what a necessity is. Of course one needs food, water, and shelter. But do they need clothes, shoes, toilet paper, a car, education, heat, or air conditioning? There are many appliances and items that border the line of a necessity, and the fact that Singer constantly reminds us to donate things that are not a necessity is a hard concept to grasp because it is unclear what a necessity is and Singer does not specify this. Another issue of the argument is the extreme metaphor he uses. Singer begins with a man who owns a very expensive Bugatti. This man, Bob, has invested all of his money from retirement into this car. He knows if he were ever to sell his car, the value of his car will keep rising with the economy, so he is sitting comfortably right now. One day he takes a drive to a railroad track and parks his Bugatti to go for a walk. Farther down the tracks he sees a child who will be hit by the train, if he doesn’t pull the switch to divert the train into the area where he parked his Bugatti. In the end, Bob doesn’t pull the switch and the child is killed by the train. This illustrates that the loss of the Bugatti would not have been as big of a loss as the child’s life, or the child is less valuable than the Bugatti. In his case, Bob is morally incorrect to not change the switch because he was the only person around, but in the case of the real world’s problem of poverty, this metaphor is faulty because Singer is applying it to all the people of the world who are capable of donating, it is not just one person’s responsibility. By this comparison, Singer is trying to convey it is morally incorrect to not donate our necessities, because everytime we don’t we are killing a child. Singer also suggests like Bob, most of us are unwilling to donate what we do not need, and he is correct.

Additionally, Singer argues with a marxist viewpoint. Marxism can be explained as a strong, central government, that ensures equality in a society, or the people should pay the government some of their profit, and in turn, the government will distribute it equally, eliminating the idea of rich and poor. In the long run, perhaps pure economic equality is a net positive for humanity. However, if we were to ever get there, what would have to happen first is a complete restructuring of our economic and social institutions. It’s hard to see how humanity would accept this. As for humanity this would be difficult because every individual must have the intent to put others’ welfare ahead of his own, even when it displays a risk for himself, such as in the case of Bob and his Bugatti. And what is bound to happen with this approach is that all of society will go unchecked. Some will be donating, some will not, and the money they collect from those who are donating, may be put forth to other efforts or not in fair amounts to bettering the issue of poverty.

Singer argues we have a moral obligation to donate what we are not in need of to charity, but this would require sacrifice, and it is difficult to expect people to live up to this. Yet, Singer recognizes that meeting moral obligations isn’t an easy task, and that by recognizing them and choosing not to meet them, that we are still doing better then not even recognizing them. Similarly, donations do not have to be as extreme as Singer illustrates they must be. By donating any amount we will be helping others who need it more, because we have grown accustomed to lavash living a small donation does help third-world countries. So if we do choose to donate we will be making a positive impact. Donation also makes a positive impact on future generations. Teaching children to be generous and develop a sense that others are struggling in our world more than we are will help improve the future generations idea of charity. Just because we can’t end the issue of world poverty doesn’t mean we should stop trying. Singer’s argument tries to draw a logical conclusion to poverty, but the problem is the conclusion is only applicable to the people who are willing to donate money they put towards necessities, to the poor, and that number is very slim. Although his argument may not be reasonable for humanity, it does make the reader realize than we do live a very lavish lifestyle, and that money given to poverty organizations can make an impact.

Hardin makes a very compelling argument with his analogy of “Lifeboat Ethics”, but at its roots, this analogy is distorted. He compares the earth to a lifeboat, and in order to safely carry those aboard it, there must be a certain carrying capacity with an allotted safety factor. If we overflow the lifeboat by helping poorer countries, then all aboard will die. But, this isn’t as extreme as Hardin illustrates it to be. It does not accurately reflect reality because it is overcomplicates how we can help foreign nations, when in fact in the real world, helping countries isn’t as dangerous to one’s own nation as Hardin illustrates it to be. This pushes few people to believe that helping poor countries is as detrimental as the “Lifeboat” analogy proposes it to be. This is a perfect example of a False Analogy fallacy because these ideas are essentially different, though they seem similar. Secondly, Hardin oversimplifies the relationship between rich and poor countries. He separates the nations of our world into rich and poor, when in fact there are many more states of wealth one could be in that just rich or poor. Also, the fact Hardin assumes that poor nations must be struggling in the water of the Lifeboat analogy is not true. Many impoverished nations have abundant natural resources and land that could be used for growth. Since, they have the resources, they simply need help making use of the natural resources they have. Because Hardin believes that we will eventually exhaust all the natural resources of the world, he proposes an idea called the Tragedy of the Commons. The Tragedy of the Commons is when a resource is available to all of a population, the people accessing it will use it out of proportion and for their own personal gain. Misuse of the resource will benefit the person who is misusing it because he or she will receive the full profit of it, but the prices will be spread among all users. This proposition is falsely rooted because we are not consuming our resources too quickly. A study from McGill University and the University of Minnesota captures results from 66 studies and 300 trials, and they came up with the conclusion that earth already produces one and a half times enough food to feed everyone on the planet. So, here Hardin is skewing facts to convince readers of his point.

In certain cases, some readers may argue that the metaphors Hardin uses and the situation Singer uses are relevant because they do not simply compare two things, but illustrate the importance of survival in real life. Others would disagree and say that Hardin’s metaphor and Singer’s hypotheticals help them conceptualize the argument both authors propose to objects in real life, thus leading them to form a viewpoint on the argument they may not have been able to establish if the metaphors and hypotheticals were not present in each argument.

In my opinion both arguments contribute something valuable to the argument as a whole; however neither arguments fully illustrate a sensible, non problematic solution for poverty. There is a middle ground that we should strive to achieve where we are donating our time, knowledge, and skills to the impoverished because with this they will be able to provide for themselves for a lifetime, and so we do not have to worry about our monetary donations being used for things that will not actually improve the lifestyle of those being donated too. Money is not the only reason impoverished nations struggle. Most poor nations lack the technology that more prosperous nations see everyday. By teaching poorer nations newer technologies, we will be providing them with something greater than anything they could get with a small monetary donation because there is no way for them to spend this knowledge, but only the option for them to put it to use.

Conclusion

To wrap up, Singer and Hardin both come from opposite perspectives, but they are similar because they both oversimplify their hypotheticals, and lead readers to form a biased opinion corresponding to their argument respectively. By carefully studying each hypothetical, readers can find the issues and opportunities for rebuttal in each one, and avoid being wrapped into Singer’s convincing emotional appeal, or Hardin’s persuasive ethical claim. Only, with attention to detail in each argument can we find a legitimate, balanced solution to aid the epidemic of world poverty.

Works Cited

1. “‘Ethics: Global Warming’ and I.” Ethics Global Warming and I RSS, blogs.commons.georgetown.edu/phil-108-spring2013-jjc276/2013/02/16/hardins-the-tragedy-of-the-commons/.
2. Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons – Summary and Commentary, faculty.wwu.edu/gmyers/esssa/Hardin.html.
3. Holt-Gimenez, Eric. “We Already Grow Enough Food For 10 Billion People — and Still Can’t End Hunger.” HuffPost, HuffPost, 18 Dec. 2014, www.huffpost.com/entry/world-hunger_b_1463429.
4. Gimpy. “World Poverty: Walking Two Roads.” The Musings of a Digital Vagabond, 6 Apr. 2011, tddr.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/world-poverty-walking-two-roads/.
5. Hardin, Garret. “Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor.” Sept. 1974, pp. 1-7.
6. Singer, Peter. “The Singer Solution to World Poverty.” 5 Sept. 2009, pp. 1-7.

Introduction

In his work “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” philosopher and ethicist Peter Singer asks readers to consider a moral problem having global implications. A daring suggestion in his article, published in 1999, that wealthy people should devote a sizable amount of their fortune to reducing severe poverty sparks a substantial controversy. He contends we have noble duties going beyond our comfort zones and implores us to think about the lives at risk in underdeveloped areas.

Article Summary

In the essay “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” philosopher Peter Singer discusses the moral need to use unconventional methods to combat poverty worldwide. This provocative essay, published in 1999, questions how we see our riches, altruism, and Principled obligation.

As his essay opens, imagine walking past a youngster drowning in a little pond. Would you save the child even at the cost of damaging your pricey shoes? Without a doubt, the majority of people would keep the kid.

Given the resources at our disposal, Singer argues we have a comparable moral duty to reduce world poverty. He proposes the idea of “marginal utility” to make the case that wealthy people can benefit society more by forgoing luxury and donating to charities fighting poverty. In his fictitious story, a person saves a child’s life by forgoing the expense of a fancy automobile. In this case, he also claims that avoiding the sacrifice is ethically equal to letting the child drown in the pond.

Critics claim Singer’s idea is excessively onerous and necessitates excellent personal sacrifice. He disagrees, arguing the costs he recommends are minimal compared to the lives that would have been spared. He realizes the unease and debate around his plan but is adamant about its morality.

In his essay, Singer explores the idea of “ethical proximity,” underlining our propensity to give preference to individuals who are physically and emotionally near us. He refutes this prejudice by highlighting the same moral value of every human life, regardless of how close it is to us.

The article debunks typical arguments against reducing Worldwide poverty, like the notion that individual actions won’t have an impact or that governments should be responsible for such matters. Singer contends that even modest individual efforts may significantly influence a group.

He suggests we should honor people who forgo luxury for the benefit of society as a whole rather than praising ostentatious consumerism.

Article Analysis

In the work “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Peter Singer makes a provocative case that questions accepted ideas of individual success, accountability, and generosity.

The study of his paper reveals a convincing argument for radical wealth redistribution to fight world poverty, but it also invites criticism and discussion.

The persuasive use of analogy in Singer’s argument is one of its main advantages. He uses a visceral human response to pain to compare giving up comforts to rescuing a drowning kid, which makes his case emotionally compelling. This comparison powerfully communicates the moral importance of tackling global poverty by convincing readers to consider their ethical commitments.

To support his thesis, he also proposes the idea of “marginal utility.” He contends that instead of financing extravagances, the wealthy’s surplus riches would have a higher moral worth if used to save lives. This utilitarian viewpoint measures the Principled consequences of our choices and encourages us to put the lives of those in the greatest need first.

His idea does, however, have several drawbacks and shortcomings. Some contend his strategy is excessively demanding and calls on people to make drastic sacrifices for society.

Given human nature and our devotion to material luxuries, many doubt the practical viability of such gifts. Singer’s suggestion can also make individuals unable to achieve his strict requirements for contributing feel guilty or morally exhausted.

Furthermore, his case is predicated on the notion that private donations can successfully end poverty. Personal efforts can undoubtedly make a difference, but more than they might be needed to solve the structural causes of poverty, such as inefficient Worldwide governance, unfair global economic structures, and unstable political systems.

His opponents claim he oversimplifies the complicated nature of poverty and disregards the necessity of more extensive structural improvements.

While he focuses on individual efforts, some contend governments must shoulder a sizable portion of the blame for tackling poverty through laws, foreign aid, and intergovernmental collaboration.

Singer’s Argument

The thesis presented by Peter Singer in “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” is a bold and divisive call to action questioning the Principled tenets of prosperous cultures. In this article, he strongly argues for dramatic wealth redistribution to end global poverty by drawing on parallels, practical ideas, and moral reasoning.

A youngster drowning in a small pond is the startling comparison Singer uses to illustrate his point. He asserts that in such a case, most individuals would naturally choose to preserve the child even if it meant forgoing something less critical, like a pricey pair of shoes. This comparison highlights our innate grasp of the right need to relieve pain and acts as a potent moral litmus test.

Singer’s main point is based on “marginal utility.” He claims people in wealthy nations may do the greater good by diverting their funds from luxury items that aren’t necessary to save lives in underdeveloped areas. He describes a fictitious situation in which a person might donate money equal to the price of a luxury automobile to save a child’s life.

In this situation, he makes the case that refusing to make the sacrifice is morally akin to letting the kid drown, emphasizing the importance of individual decisions in the face of acute poverty.

Singer is prepared for criticism of his plan, significantly the charge that it is overly demanding. In response, he emphasizes the small sacrifices he calls for in light of the lives they will save. He asks readers to reevaluate their priorities and examine if preserving excessive riches is noble when so many people are in need.

Singer’s critique of “ethical proximity” is another vital part of his case. He argues that people frequently overlook individuals living in distant, underdeveloped locations in favor of those physically and emotionally closer to them.

Singer disputes this prejudice, arguing that all human lives have the same moral value and proximity should not affect how important we are to easing suffering.

He realizes the unease and debate around his idea but is adamant it is ethically correct. He says we must reconsider the social norms which now reward materialism and excessive consumerism. Instead, he proposes we change our beliefs and priorities by admiring those who are prepared to give up their comforts for the sake of others.

His thesis is persuasive and worth considering, although it has flaws. Given human nature and our commitment to material luxuries, some claim his idea could be more practical and demanding.

Critics also raise concerns about the viability of combating systemic poverty merely through voluntary contributions, emphasizing the necessity of more extensive structural changes and government engagement.

Introduction

In the works of both Matt Zwolinski and Peter Singer, the two political philosophers explore the moral necessities surrounding altruistic international assistance and economic relationships, demonstrating the need for greater, more pragmatic international support for developing countries in the context of the global free market.

Singer and Effective Altruism

In the essay “Affluence, Famine, and Morality,” Peter Singer argues that people in affluent countries have a moral obligation to provide more international humanitarian assistance, especially toward disaster relief. He qualifies this with the principle, “if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it” (Singer, “Affluence, Famine, and Morality” 231). In so doing, he condemns affluent countries’ over-indulgence in material luxuries while they simultaneously remain negligent toward their implicit ethical responsibilities.

Singer then goes on to argue that there is no moral difference between helping someone physically near us as opposed to helping someone in another country given today’s global interconnectivity. He supports this by objecting to contemporary acceptance of the bystander effect, asserting that it does not lessen our moral obligation to mitigate suffering whether an individual is the only person able to help or if many can do so. In this light, Singer opposes society’s modern normative view of giving to those in need as “charitable,” claiming that philanthropy is a moral obligation. He emphasizes that to not participate is less uncharitable than it is wrong and immoral.

Singer offers the position that the government should be entirely responsible for international assistance as a counterpoint to his own claims. He dismisses this objection, which claims that private contributions enable the government to avoid responsibility. According to Singer, government decisions to develop aid programs come about as a reflection of domestic public interest in the government doing so, with private philanthropy serving as a method by which citizens can demonstrate such interest. Thus, effective aid comes about as private and public efforts toward global altruism compound off one another, necessitating the ongoing and dynamic participation of both.

The final objection Singer refutes is that giving to charity provides only a temporary solution to most problems, such as food insecurity. He replies that this conundrum does not exonerate moral negligence, adding that individuals can seek out and support organizations that do address the root causes of global issues instead of their symptoms. He goes on to address how much we should donate; Singer asserts it is our duty to give to the point of marginal utility, or the point at which giving more would result in comparable harm to those being helped.

Singer’s ultimate argument is that living ethically involves consistently pursuing actions that confer the greatest benefits, whether at an individual or societal level. Another of Singer’s works, The Most Good You Can Do, centers around this idea. In the book, Singer argues that assistance should be done in the most pragmatic manner possible, offering the idea of Effective Altruism. In defining the concept, he states: “[Effective altruists] don’t give to whatever cause tugs most strongly at their heartstrings. They give to the cause that will do the most good, given the abilities, time and money they have available” (Singer, “The Most Good You Can Do” 7). This duty to the poor entails doing the most good with the excess money people have in affluent nations, not just simply doing good.

Zwolinski and Sweatshops

In keeping with the idea of morally pragmatic treatment of international economic assistance, the political philosopher Matt Zwolinski argues that curtailing sweatshops within the context of the global free market would be locally detrimental and thus morally antithetical. Zwolinski argues that the choice of many individuals in developing countries to seek employment in sweatshops represents the expression of independent preferences based upon one’s autonomy within circumstances that fail to offer better options. Thus, the decision demonstrates moral significance, as it both exhibits such individuals’ capacities for rationality as well as their dismissal of other, less beneficial options.

While it can be true that people don’t have an intrinsic desire to be a sweatshop worker, it is also true that they prefer it to alternative choices, and “acting to remove that option is likely to cause them great harm” (Zwolinski 694). In fact, they prefer sweatshop jobs as they outpay their other domestic choices significantly. For many laborers, taking away sweatshop job opportunities would ultimately take away their highest paying employment option. Furthermore, sweatshops offer mutual global benefits: not only can multinational companies reduce operating costs, but they can also provide the poor in developing nations with relatively preferential employment.

Implicit to this discussion is the idea of raising the minimum wage for sweatshop workers. Zwolinski argues that doing so would produce adverse consequences, as it would incentivize companies to move to regions where labor costs remain naturally low—effectively removing the best employment options for many in poor countries, and ultimately leaving them worse off.

Our Duty to the Poor

Given the somewhat randomness of international inequity, there lies a particular moral duty to attempt to overcome the global collective action problem of foreign aid. The contemporary globalization of world markets only serves to exacerbate this dilemma, as those nations already endowed with the most advanced resources, such as the United States, receive the most tangible benefits of trade with other, less developed countries. This is apparent throughout society; the example of Professor Courtland’s cartoon juxtaposing poverty in America versus that in Indonesia, in which the unemployed American still wears expensive shoes while the Indonesian wears none at all, especially illustrated this point for me (WordPress).

To combine the points of both Singer and Zwolinski, it is ethically important that society enacts pragmatic policies toward international assistance that take into account both our moral imperative to provide aid but also the necessity to take into account the realities of the global free market. Moreover, US assistance does not have to be through outright donations or monetary transfer. As such, the United States could promote diplomatic trade platforms that provide vast economic benefits to participating countries while also requiring them to adhere to certain norms, such as a baseline minimum wage. By establishing such respectful economic and diplomatic relationships, the United States could better position itself to lead developing countries to promote their own economies in ways that respect the rights of the employed while also expanding economic opportunity for everyone.

With this paper, I attempt to explain what global poverty is and how Peter Singer, a renowned philosopher, puts it. One should be able to clearly see, with this thesis, the moral obligation of the rich towards the people in extreme poverty. I will also briefly look at how demands of huge donations might attack incentives of the rich to work further so as to respond to the objection raised to Singer’s argument that there is “no way of telling us when we have done enough” by looking at what really matters.

Extreme Poverty, basically, refers to a state of living where an individual (group of individuals) is deprived of the basic human needs like safe food and drinking water, sanitation facilities, health care, shelter and basic education. Extreme Poverty reduces the standard of living of people and might motivate people towards illegal and harmful activities like stealing, robbery, drugs and other treacherous crimes. People living in such poverty has negative spill over consequences when the families of such people expand without sufficient access to decent level of living facilities. In today’s world, global poverty requires immediate attention to make this place a better place not only for this generation but also for the generations to follow. According to the most recent estimates, in 2015, 10 percent of the world’s population lived on less than US$1.90 a day.

Singer has argued over time and which, in my eyes, is the sanest theory that (i) if one can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, one ought to do it. Furthermore, he establishes that (ii) extreme poverty is bad. (iii) We can prevent (some) extreme poverty without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance. Therefore, Singer’s generalized argument concludes that, given the above premises, we ought to prevent extreme global poverty.

This argument was criticized for not being able to define what “comparable moral significance” is. Even if, out of sense of ethical responsibility, one decides to reduce extreme poverty, when should they be morally praiseworthy or, when do we know they have contributed enough on their part towards fighting global poverty.

Common sense urges that the rich need to stand up to provide for the poor. Is asking the rich to step up for people in extreme poverty our right? Definitely not, it is technically not the fault of the rich people that global poverty exists but as Singer puts out if one can prevent global poverty without sacrificing something of comparable moral significance, one ought to do it. It is not the compulsion for the rich to do so but in the absolute sense, the rich has the proper tools to eliminate poverty. People will have always have the option to donate whatever they were going to spend on inane luxuries anyway. If a man has enough to provide his family with basic human needs, he should be morally required to donate the rest to save lives of people who die out of extreme poverty. Although a subtle point need to be noted, building houses and treating the sick will not end poverty, children living in extreme poverty need to be provided with proper education at minimal costs to stop further extension of poverty.

No matter rich should be morally donating and mitigating the pain suffered by people in poverty, the rich cannot be legally be required to do so. Suppose, the government legally requires the rich to donate the major portion of their income to satisfy the needs of the poor, no one will have an incentive to work because they will always the same standard of living as a person who is not working at all (they will be inclined to not work and still earn the basic needs of living). Hence, the question arises how much should one donate?

For example, the tragedy of Notre-Dame fire enables us to look at how people from around the world voluntarily raised nearly USD $1 billion within two days for it’s restoration. This amount could have saved nearly 285,000 lives or heal the blindness of around 11 million people. Such numbers enable us to look further, it’s nearer than we think, the rich just need to take the initiative to help remove the extreme poverty. If everyone is required to pay just 1% of their wealth, once and for all, it can raise up to USD $92 billion just from the net worth of billionaires in the world.

Singer can argue everyone ought to donate the maximum amount they can without sacrificing the needs of oneself and one’s family. When do we know that we have done enough? We don’t. Objectively, one can never know if he/she has done enough but what matters is has he/she reached the maximum possible potential. What matters is have you donated and saved lives of as many people as possible without sacrificing your or your loved one’s needs. For example, if a billionaire, let’s say, Amancio Ortega, decides to donate three-fourth of his net worth to help children in extreme poverty. One can never say that he could have donated way more than he did or suggest other ways in which he could have maximized the donations because in his opinion, he has reached the level after which he would have to sacrifice the needs of his family or his company (assuming his company might need the funds in order to operate and further donate at some future date).

To conclude, I wish to say that Peter Singer has clearly outlined what one ought to do when it comes to donating one’s wealth in order to help children in extreme poverty. We can extend his argument by also highlighting the fact that one would not be morally blameworthy if one decides to not help the children in poverty and one would be morally praiseworthy if one decides to do the aforementioned. The objection raised that when can one ever know if he has done enough, we earlier established that there is no objective answer to that question but that one ought to do what he thinks is enough. I would end the thesis with what Peter Singer once said, “More often there’s a compromise between ethics and expediency”.