Introduction
The human nature is insufficiently altruistic to make it likely that majority of the people would sacrifice a lot on behalf of the strangers; this was according to the evolutionary psychologists. Though they might be right on the reality of human nature, it would be wrong to make moral conclusions from such facts. If that were the case on how things ought to be done, then most of the people would not do. If people could have valued child’s life so much than going to luxurious restaurants, then they could have known that there was something better, which they could have used their money for when dining. Therefore, a morally decent life is lived when people sacrifice their luxuries for the sake of saving life of such children, otherwise they should know that they are not living a morally upright life (Singer 5).
According to Singer, a morally decent life is the one that involves sacrificing whatever money people could have spent on luxurious goods, but not necessities, for the sake of saving other people that poverty has extremely affect (Singer 1).
Generally, giving out the money meant for luxurious goods can help save the life of those people in poverty; therefore, a morally decent person has to sacrifice for the sake of those suffering in poverty.
This can be fully proven using the evidences in Singer’s article, which views instances where people could have saved other people’s life through sacrificing their own luxuries. Note the following evidences given by Singer in ‘Central Station’ film.
In the first incidence, Dora who was the retired schoolteacher got an opportunity when she received $ 1000 from the wealthy foreigners to persuade a 9-year old boy to follow her so that he would be adopted. After Dora delivered the boy and received the money, she went and spent some of the money to buy a television set and went further to settle to enjoy the new acquisition. Later, in the middle of her enjoyment, Dora’s neighbor criticized her by speaking out plainly about what the boy can experience with those foreigners, for instance, he could killed and his organs removed then sold for the purpose of transplantation. Those criticisms indeed disturbed Dora until she then resolved bring back the boy.
However, Singer stated that if Dora would have said to her neighbor “it is tough world, other people have nice new TV’s too, and if selling the kid is the only way she can get one well, he was only a street kid” (1)
Based on the above evidence, Dora is morally decent mainly because she resolved to save the boy’s life by sacrificing the money she could have used on the television, which was the luxurious item for her. If she had decided to follow, what other people have or do, then she could not have resolved to save the boy in order to enjoy having a TV just like them, and thus not morally decent.
On the other hand, people tend to criticize others if they fail to save lives of children who are at risk by sacrificing their luxuries, and yet they spend too much money on the things that are not necessary to them such as buying fashion clothes as compared to the ones they criticized.
In the second incidence, (as cited in Unger, n.pag), Bob whose is close to retirement, has invested much his savings in a very expensive car ‘the Bugatti’ as it was known and he has not yet insured the car. One day, Bob who was having a drive decided to park his valuable car close to the railway siding and went away for a walk along the track. Later, he saw the train coming down its track with no one inside, and after seeing farther, there was a child on the railway track whom the train was going kill. There was no way of saving the child’s life except throwing a switch in order to divert the train towards the place his Bugatti was parked and by doing so, his valuable vehicle would be destroyed. Finally, Bob decided not to divert the train in his Bugatti because it would deprive him of his joy of owning it and “the financial security it represents” (2).
This decision caused the life of the child to be lost while Bob continued to enjoy his treasured Bugatti. Therefore, Bob is not living a morally decent life mainly because of his poor judgment and the wrong choice he made. This is because he preferred to have his luxurious Bugatti car in place at the expense of the innocent child’s life. However, the child’s life could have been saved only if Bob had given away his Bugatti to be destroyed by the train to prevent it from killing the innocent child, and thus morally decent life.
Works cited
Singer, Peter. “The Solution to World Poverty.” The New York Times Magazine, 1999: 1-5. Print.
