Singer’s work on ending world poverty is among the most significant works on altruism. Singer precedes his arguments by giving two cases. First, he described a case of Dora as depicted in the Brazilian Film “Central Station.” In this scenario, Dora, a retired schoolteacher works in a station where she writes letters for illiterate people. She gets an opportunity of gaining $1000 by taking a 9-year boy to an address given to her for adoption. Upon delivering the boy, Dora takes the money and buys a television and settles to spend the rest. However, her neighbor spoils her enjoyment by informing her that the boy was too old for adoption and that the adopters would kill him and harvest his organs to sell for transplantation. Maybe Dora had information about it and chose to deliver the boy. After her neighbors direct speaking, she had a troubled night and resolved to take back the boy. Citizens of wealthy nations buy non-essential goods just like Dora knowing that they can donate the money to save lives of children in need. Singer argues that was unethical (MacDonald).
The second case of Bob. Bob was about to retire, and he used his savings to buy a valuable vintage car (Bugatti) that he could not insure. He was proud of the car and knew that apart from the pleasure he got from it, he could also sell it and live happily after retirement. One day, when Bob was out for a drive, he parked the car near the end of a railway siding and took a walk up the track. Suddenly, Bob saw a runaway train with nobody inside running down the rails. Further ahead, Bob saw a small figure of a child. The train would most likely kill the child because there was no way he could stop the train. Because he was far, he could not warn the child of the imminent danger but was in a position to throw a switch that would divert the train towards the side of his Bugatti. In this case, no one would die, but the train would destroy his car. Bob thought of the joy of owning the car and the financial implications it had on him and decided not to throw the switch. The train killed the child. For a long time afterward, Bob enjoyed the ownership of the Bugatti and the financial securities attached to it (Gaskill).
Singer’s Support of Altruism
In the two cases, Singer suggests that it is immoral not to stop something bad from happening if one is able i.e. one does not sacrifice something of comparable moral importance. For the first case, wealthy nations are aware of the state of affairs regarding poverty in CAR (Central Africa Republic) and other regions. Since death is a universally bad thing, the wealthy nations have a moral obligation to sacrifice their luxuries to stop it. On the second case, Singer argues on the nature of losses the rich countries could take. In this respect, the loss of the Bugatti is not as high as that of the child’s life. The value of the Bugatti is lower than the life of the child. Although singer in the former proposition towards altruism was that one needed not to lose something of comparable moral value, he noted that giving several hundred dollars would have a lesser value than the lives of the starving children in CAR and to other drought-stricken regions. In a nutshell, singer proposes that wealthy nation had the obligation to prevent evil things (death by starvation) from happening by sacrificing their luxuries and donating the money to charity organization like UNICEF.
Objections
Critics of Singer propositions argued that the donations may not reach the target. However, singer noted that the assertion was speculative, and the majority of the aid reaches the developing nations. Moreover, some argue that it was unrealistic to expect people to meet their moral obligations if they required considerable sacrifices. Singer responded by claiming that it was better not recognizing one’s moral obligations other than knowing, and ignoring them. From utilitarianism point of view, one is responsible for the outcomes of his actions or failure to act. It follows that one is morally culpable for not sacrificing luxuries. Another objection was that government would better handle foreign aid to make the contributions fairly distributed among the population (MacDonald). However, Signer asserted that from a practical perspective, the government cannot give enough help to save the starving children.
My position
I agree with Singer that it is morally wrong for an individuals to fail to stop a bad thing from happening. However, I do not believe that preventing bad things from happening requires aid. When the wealthy nation gives developing countries donations, they are not solving the problem, but offering short-term solutions that are not sustainable. Donations directed towards the supply of food and medication is a short-term goal and cannot be a solution to the underlying problems. It follows that in as much as the developed nations give aid without strengthening the social and economic affairs of the developing countries, there would be no significant change. Besides, the more the wealthy nations give, the more they also become vulnerable to similar situations. For instance, if one sacrifices their luxuries, it means that they would reduce their expenditure in the local economics. That would lessen the flow of money, reduce profits for the local investments, and consequently cause joblessness. Moreover, if the government gives aid, its emergency reserves diminish significantly. In the case of disasters, it would be difficult to survive. I suggest that the most viable way of ending world poverty is to empower the developing nations through trade, social and economic reforms and stopping wars that impoverish them.
Works cited
Gaskill, Dan. Lecture Notes on Peter Singer “The Signer solution to world poverty.” Pdf file. N.p. N.d. Accessed on April 4, 2016. Available at <http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/Singer%20Poverty.htm>
MacDonald, Ross. The Singer solution to world poverty. The New York Times September 05, 1999. Accessed on April 4, 2016. Available at <http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/19990905mag-poverty-singer.html>
