The Singer Solution to World Poverty
Millions quietly starve in some of the poorest villages on earth, invisible even in death. This rampant poverty is a deeply embedded wound that has scarred our earth; yet, our American life we know is much sheltered from these terrors of reality. Our “first world” problems like slow internet, non-organic food, and delayed flights are dwarfed by the true struggles of life. So, to end this extreme poverty that many have disregarded, an intriguing solution has been proposed by the Australian philosopher Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics at Princeton University. Singer, perhaps the world’s most controversial ethicist, offers some avant-garde thoughts about the ordinary American’s obligations to the world’s poor. The formula is simple: money that you’re spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away to overseas aid organizations such as UNICEF or Oxfam America. It seems as daunting and complex at first sight as it seems revolutionary if implemented.
People around the world are going day by day trying to survive; surviving isn’t living. Still, many indulge in luxuries just with the occasional hand of help. However, we don’t need our luxuries, but people need water, food, and shelter. Singer’s philosophy preaches that this privileged population needs to mobilize more in order to help break the cycle of poverty. In the Millennium Development Goals Report (2015), the UN reported a substantial leap of nearly 1.1 billion people that moved out of extreme poverty since 1990. Imagine if Singer’s solution was applied to amplify shared prosperity all across the world: the result would be astonishing. The influence of these organizations would create an impactful footprint in eradicating poverty; magnified more with funding from the world’s privileged.
However, according to evolutionary psychologists, human nature just isn’t sufficiently altruistic enough to sacrifice so much for strangers.
In a realistic world, one where not everyone follows their moral compass, is it possible? Won’t many shrug and claim that the moral good is just a preach from saints? It seems unlikely for there to be a world in which a bulk of the American’s wealth is given away to strangers. The implications of Singer’s solution arise many complications. If money towards luxury items decrease, that upends many parts of the economy. The world of luxury creates new sectors of industry and business. A Statista research reported that the total global expenditure of luxury goods in 2014 was $1.1 trillion. Large industries of luxury products would decline and there would be a shortage of many blue collar and white-collar jobs. In a way, it’s a cycle of disadvantage for the people of our nation. The problem would exacerbate until we would need to help ourselves before we’d be able to help anyone else.
American ideals represent our right to personal liberties. We cannot take away a man or woman’s judgment on how to spend their money. Making such a large alteration in our economy would also create considerable dissent. History repeats itself, and it has shown that drastic regulation on our economy would bring negative consequences. In addition, not everyone is guided by pristine morals of selflessness. Singer’s solution would be hard for people to conform to, as it’s a completely foreign concept with many limitations. Every time one person donates their “excess” money, it would just be counteracted with a negative. While every solution will have its negatives along with its positives, in this case, Singer’s solution starts to drown in its cons.
Our world has painted a stark distinction between the people of poverty stricken countries to the privileged. The pros of Singer’s solution are hypothetical as there has been no society who has established such an economic policy. Yet, it’s true that just because it hasn’t been done before, doesn’t mean it can’t be done now. However, any measure of effectiveness with his solutions would be lost among the ramifications. While Peter Singer does present a fair argument, it imposes a guideline that many people would not conform to in a free market nation. The citizens of America have lived with the liberty to make their personal economic decisions for a long time. Trying to enforce singer’s solution in society like this, would waste time and effort. Along with this, the luxury sector creates jobs that contribute to the economy and help shape our nation. Although, it doesn’t mean we can’t take inspiration from Peter Singer’s solution.
It should be a responsibility of the wealthy to donate to overseas aid organizations, but that does not mean we have to go to extremes; we do not need to donate away every penny not needed for basic requirements of life. The UN already has a $10 trillion-dollar budget for its sustainable developmental goals. This money came from individuals willing to offer help and there will be more of us who will continue the fight to end global poverty. We cannot just “simply” enforce Singer’s solution. The world’s problems can’t be solved if people are doing something because they have to rather than with the passion to help.
