Table of Contents
This is an introduction.
Peter Singer’s Solution to World Poverty
In conclusion
An opening statement
Global poverty seems to be growing with no end in sight. While the rich are becoming more wealthy, those in need of assistance are not receiving enough help. It is evident that people believe everyone should be able to have a decent life, no matter their location or status. But they don’t know how. Peter Singer, a utilitarian philosopher and author, suggested a generous but controversial way to end poverty. Andrew Kuper disagreed with Singer’s suggestion that we should give up our luxuries and help the poor around the globe. Kuper believed that Singer’s argument was too simplistic. Kuper’s argument is reinforced by mine. I believe that we have a moral obligation to not only financially support the poor, but to speak out and demand change.
Peter Singer’s Singer Solution to World Poverty. Singer wrote in The New York Times that North Americans should give away excess wealth to help children in developing countries, instead of spending it on themselves. Singer discusses fictional cases. The first involves Dora, who saves the lives of a homeless boy by giving her money to organ dealers. The second concerns Bob, who lets his Bugatti get crushed by a train and instead of flipping a switch so that the train can run him over. Singer suggests through the analysis of these cases that we all face similar dilemmas. It is our moral obligation as moral beings to sacrifice our luxuries to help children. Kuper believes that while donating money to the poor can be a way to soothe our consciences, it would actually hurt those who are in greatest need as their problems are complex interactions of economic and political relations. Singer states that most of Singer’s recommended luxuries are manufactured in countries with poor economies. We must reform the political system and economy through lobbying and tourism in order to effect real change.
It is important for us to point out that Singer did indeed respond to Kuper’s criticisms in his article entitled “Poverty Facts Political Philosophies”. He claimed that though powerful political figures may try to block some donations to charities, that doesn’t make them any less worthy. Singer talks about how Oxfam, a charity that works with the poor, is aware of corrupt politicians and has taken steps to remove them from a country if necessary. These organizations can help Kuper’s ideas, but they don’t always make it easy for people living in rural areas who are unable to transport goods to global markets.
Kuper replied that no amount money will fix the global poverty epidemic. Singer mentions that rural people should be supported by transportation and not looking for alternative solutions to poverty. Singer concludes by stating that Kuper’s argument does in fact support his central claim that it’s morally wrong not to sacrifice one’s luxuries for the benefit of the extremely poor. Singer states that he supports Kuper’s solution, but he feels that it is difficult to change established political systems. However, donating money wouldn’t be detrimental.
Singer has some strong arguments against Kuper’s argument. But that doesn’t make it invalid. Kuper can strengthen his argument by giving more detailed explanations on how poverty is caused not by lack of financial but political support. It is obvious that providing aid relief in the form of billions of dollars to the poorest countries of the world will not solve the problem of poverty. This is evident from the history of donations with no end in sight. Kuper claims that providing charitable donations does more harm that good. However, he doesn’t explain why. He goes on a tangent about the way President Mbeki’s fabricated views of HIV not causing AIDs are obstructing money that was sent to South Africa to help stop the AIDs epidemic. Singer has strongly criticised this argument, saying that while some funds may still go towards helping those in dire need, other charitable organizations can also provide proper medication. Singer is correct in that even though all of the money does not go to helping people in need, it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t give what we can if there aren’t other options. It doesn’t necessarily mean we are prolonging someone else’s life.
Let’s take a look at the two instances Singer highlighted in The Singer Solution. Bob letting a child starve to death rather than destroying his Bugatti makes it difficult to portray the lives of children in developing countries. We assume in this case that the child Bob would have had a normal life. Singer’s original case, which involved an impoverished child, is a better representation, but Singer doesn’t address the issue. Dora saves the poor child’s organs but does not improve their quality of life. How would the viewers feel if Dora saved the little boy but left him at the street corner? We are giving clean water to small villages in Africa and mosquito nets for children to prevent malaria to help them live longer, but it won’t make them poorer.
It is clear that Oxfam and many other charities work hard to help those in need. They have to follow all regulations in the country they’re helping. Although it is great to provide better health and care for those in crisis, true assistance comes from funding the national government and legislation. These funds allow for improvements in transportation and education. Singer briefly speaks of the obligation for countries to increase foreign aid. He fails to realize that aid recipients must be properly using aid. North American political leaders are under pressure to ensure the well-being of all citizens. They must develop strategies to promote economic growth and social security for those in need. These include welfare programs, universal healthcare, free education and homeless shelters. Public transport is also included to ensure that residents are able to live a fulfilling, happy life. Without these services, recipients of aid from the foreign government and charities will be unable to sustain themselves and lead enriching lives.
Kuper is on a good track. But, my opinion is that his approach does not provide the accountability needed to create real change. I think he should embrace, not deny, the desire of the public to aid the global poor to strengthen his argument. Singer’s attempts to end poverty are very idealistic. However, he puts the responsibility of the reader, the public, on them. Kuper’s large-scale approach to poverty will not work unless there are clear moral obligations for individuals.
It is evident that politicians are the ones who hold power and authority. However, they depend on others for their survival. North American politicians must communicate with citizens and come up with ideas that will improve their lives. A politician who fails to keep their promises, or implements harmful laws, is likely to be removed from office. Many of us take an active part in influencing government decisions and pressing them to make good decisions for society. One example is LGBTQ rights. It’s unlikely that politicians who aren’t directly affected by these laws will allow gay marriage to be legalized in the United States for another ten, twenty, or even thirty years if they don’t have the support of the public. In North America, politicians are considered public servants. It is unacceptable for them to prioritize their own needs over the public’s. Politicians around the globe should not be subject to the same pressures as those who lobby and protest.
Many times, governments and individuals give aid to foreign countries. They hope that those in power will share the money fairly and equally with those in need. However, corrupt politicians often succumb too easily to greed. Political leaders may also rig and even kill elections to maintain their power in certain parts of the world. Although they may not be concerned about winning votes, we must still hold them accountable. To really end poverty, we have to fix the corruption at the political level that allows politicians withhold aid from those who require it. This issue can be addressed by political leaders who are more willing to raise awareness and demand change.
It is difficult to judge the impact of large-scale lobbying. However, it is not impossible to draw conclusions from the results of small-scale efforts. We wrongly place group identities like nationality above individual moral obligations by restricting the politics we engage with. Singer and Kuper would agree that this is wrong. By making it known about the plans of politicians and putting pressure on them to make the right decisions, we should actively take part in global elections.
Singer’s response on Kuper’s argument was very similar. I would assume that Singer would have a similar opinion to mine. While Singer may argue that lobbying for equality around the globe and holding politicians accountable is fine, it does not mean that you shouldn’t donate your money to those in need. I do not believe it will be possible for governments to reform the way they care for their citizens. It’s absurd that a government would spend money to set up universal healthcare in their country, when Oxfam can provide the necessary medication for citizens in crisis. Because we will provide assistance, we encourage politicians continue to act recklessly. They won’t see any need or urgency to resolve their economic and social problems. They may even become dependent upon foreign aid to manage their economy and finance their greedy spending.
Conclusion. Philanthropy has been used for decades to help those less fortunate. However, the major problems like global poverty persist. Singer’s attempts to alleviate poverty are thoughtful and kind, but it is obvious that charity organizations have not made a difference in ending the systemic oppression faced by those living in extreme poverty. Singer has a right to help others in this unfair situation. But I believe that everyone has a moral responsibility. It is up to us all to get motivated to make demands of those in power to change. This is how we ensure people don’t just survive in suboptimal circumstances, but thrive and lead enriching lives. Singer’s argument isn’t against political changes, in fact, he would most likely support them. Singer’s idea is clear, but my objection is to his solution. Helping the poor only survives and prevents us from making lasting changes. Global poverty is an issue that can be solved. It is becoming more obvious that it is possible to fix it.
Comments are closed.