Often times, the middle and upper classes underestimate the amount of poverty left in our society. In “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Peter Singer reaches out to the lucrative to help the misfortune. Although Singer believes that, the wealthy has a responsibility in providing help to the less fortunate, Singer conducts theories in which he explains how we as Americans spend more on luxuries rather than necessities. If the wealthy are fortunate enough to go out to fancy meals, they should be able to provide food for a poor family or medicine for the children. The negative attributes outweigh the positive due to the lack of supporting detail from the positive in which helps us better understand that helping people is the right thing to do rather than sitting back and doing nothing but demands that Americans donate every cent of their extra money to help the poor.
This idea is very similar to that of Peter Singer, who contends that the injustice of people who live in abundance while others starve is morally inexcusable. He argues that anyone who is able to aid the poor ought to donate in order to help the crisis of world poverty and similar endeavors. Singer explains that if one is already living comfortably, the act of acquiring luxuries to increase pleasure does not entail the same moral importance as saving someone’s life. Since he is a utilitarian, he judges whether acts are right or wrong based on the consequences the action brings. Therefore, if the consequence of the wealthy people’s failure to donate money is that another poor person dies, then that is just as bad as killing them, since they are consciously letting them die.
However, I found that his... ... middle of paper ... ...ovide us a more concrete feeling as we indeed helped a person; unlike that uncertain feeling we gain from giving money to charities. The last reason is that Singer has ignored the utilitarian criteria of morality. Giving aways our money to charity would not always have the best payback. Imagine just like what Singer suggested, everyone gave out their excess money to the underprivileged people, then people in developed countries may start to stop consuming unnecessary products. Economies may decline as a result of a change of life style; it eventually reduces people’s happiness.
Moreover, these resource-rich countries usually make uneducated decisions including becoming involved in conspiracies. Leaders of poor or corrupted countries fail to realize that if their revenue isn’t reinvested into productive investments above ground, then they will actually become even poorer. “Political dysfunction exacerbates the problem, as conflict over access to resource rents gives rise to corrupt and undemocratic governments” (Stiglitz). It is obvious that certain gains from natural occurrences need to be managed in a way so countries will be able to become symbolically richer. Overruling power is another way that countries become poor, which includes corruption.
Having opportune circumstances can land people jobs, but having the opposite can also perpetuate the depression and reality of poverty for others. When people have reasons not to seize their days, they might sink deeper and deeper into the belief that they cannot truly escape poverty. People need to have the proper assistance to breakaway from poverty and lead successful lives. Poverty in America is largely due to the government’s overcompensation of benefits, which provides less emphasis on education and leads to individuals lacking the drive and skills to succeed on their own. Initially, what matters tremendously in determining one’s chances in life is education.
The author’s main point is that it is morally wrong for affluent people to spend money on unnecessary things such as restaurants and vacations when children are suffering in other countries. The use of this points out that the author believes in moralistic and compassionate values. In addition, the author is sometimes being too forceful by telling the reader what to do. Since he uses such an emotional and forceful tone in the article, it is doubtful if Singer is successful at selling the audience on his point concerning this issue. He may have convinced many people to donate a particular amount of money for charity to poor countries, but his article is not effective enough to convince me.
The other problem is, the modern men do not think themselves as a part of the nature. We have to develop the technology, but it should be in smaller scale that everyone could use that. According to Schumacher the real meanings of the economy developed and improve are needed to correct a few things. These are; the issues of peace and stability, recourses, the right use of earth and nuclear, and development of social and economic problems. According to Schumacher, we improve economy in developing countries and the problem is here, which the rich people are getting richer and the poor people are getting poorer, because we do not use a good system of economic progress and do not think about the negatives effect of that on environment.
When the government records a financial surplus, it will do a wealth redistribution through welfare system to help the needy. Theoretically, the poor will get help from this welfare system and their living conditions should be fine. Unfortunately, Hong Kong is practicing fixed tax rate, so the taxable income or profit is just a mosquito bite to the tycoons who are controlling monopolised markets. The amount of tax is far from sufficient to solve the needs of the poor. Although private monopoly generates wealth and tycoons, its inequality is not good for all and especially for the worst-off (Rawls’ Second
This is due to the lack of financial assistance for poor families from the Government. By cutting the foreign aid budget the Government could increase investment in the impoverished children of their own country. The way in which foreign aid is distributed is highly ineffective and fails to achieve its sole purpose. Corruption ravages the developing world; greedy diplomats and fraudulent officials are often known to embezzle vast amounts of the aid money given to help those most in need. As Lord P. T. Bauer of London School for Economics famously said, foreign aid is “an excellent method for transferring money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.” The money does not reach those who need it but is instead pocketed by dishonest members of government in foreign countries.
However, Singer only uses this thought experiment to draw parallels between the Bob case and the spending habits of a modern consumer in an affluent country. He claims that "Bob's situation resembles that of people able but unwilling to donate....” Furthermore, he argues that there is no moral difference between the two scenarios. Hence, by Singer's argument, splurging on luxuries and not donating to charities is an immoral act. Having already condemned Bob's decision to not save the child's life the reader is left with no option but to accept P... ... middle of paper ... ...n how much confidence the people have in the company’s financial capabilities. Additionally, implementing this solution may have detrimental effect on the economic structure of the society.