Every day people in America are buying new and expensive things, whether it is a new car, a flat screen television or that $7,000 engagement ring for their sweetheart. In Singer’s article “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Singer suggests an eradicable solution, that “prosperous people should donate to overseas aid organizations” to help the needy in other countries that cannot afford even the simplest necessities instead of purchasing those “luxuries. ” There are several pros and cons that float around Singer’s argument, the negatives however seem to out rule the positive thinking in Singer’s case.
Singer urges that Americans should donate every last penny they earn if it is not going toward necessities, people may find this ludicrous, or people may find it to be a plausible solution to end poverty around the world. I on the other hand agree with the people who work every day of their life to support their own family, not with the people who think it is so simple to just stick out their hand and expect to get money graciously given to them. The American people are hardworking and do not deserve to be guilted into giving charity.
So many times on television the American people view commercials that beg for them to provide places in Africa and other countries with money so that they can afford schooling or a substantial meal every day. What those commercials show are the places in Africa that unfortunately do not have a steady form of currency, but in truth there are many whereabouts in Africa that in fact have a more stable economy then cities in America. This leads me to refute Singer’s “simple” solution, why is he proposing this idea to Americans who are currently in a recession, when in reality these countries should help themselves.
America is a very generous country; funds are given by our government to help other populations constantly, Singer has no right to pressure citizens of the U. S to “donate” out of pocket to these other countries. Singer brings many questions to mind when he says that “all money not needed for the basic requirements of life” should be donated to “overseas aid organizations such as UNICEF or OxFam America. ” What exactly is a “luxury” to American people? Or in that matter a “necessity? ” What some people consider being extravagant others may find mediocre. What some people deem a uxury others consider a need. Televisions for example, there are many good reasons why it could be considered a need. People should know what is going on in the world, without televised news one would not know. Endhomelessness. org has an article that states in 2011 there was a recorded 636,017 people found homeless in America, to that half a million people toilet paper would be considered a luxury, sad, but true. As I said earlier people may consider “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” a solid idea, there are a few positives that hold truth in his notion.
For example two of the seven deadly sins are Greed and Gluttony, Americans are considered to be gluttons with high standards, we are always wanting more of everything, more money, more food, more clothes. This is when Singer’s solution can be considered, Americans should stop being greedy and spending their money on luxuries and be charitable people. Isn’t it true that when you do something to help others you feel good about yourself? Most people may even become more humane for giving to charities that will help starving children and families in other parts of the world.
Singer’s idea poses these wholesome concepts as a righteous deed for some people, yes, but for a handful more, no. Singer gives broad reasoning as to why the American people should not reward themselves and give away their hard earned money. The strongest argument he gives is that there is an “urgent need for food and medicine in many parts of the world. ” Singer is referring to countries other than America, but a question one should ask Singer is “what about America? Does America not have poverty stricken people, people who have no homes, homes that have been annihilated due to hurricanes and severe storms, storms that have killed many children and parents, parents who cannot afford to feed their children some nights, nights where families sleep in fear, fear that leads America to its own destruction? The answer to that question is yes. Singer wants Americans to pass their wealth on to other countries when in reality charity starts at home. The only way Americans can help other countries is if we help ourselves first.
Singer’s argument upholds some positive reasoning but as a whole upraises more damaging aspects that he must not have taken into consideration. If the American people take to “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” then what will be left to America? All of our money will be gone, enriching other countries other than our own, yes Singers reasoning is a noble idea, but there just simply is not enough money to go around. Therefore his notion is not a plausible solution to end poverty in the world.