Singer's Solution - May Spotlight

Band Geek · Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:02 pm

This is also an essay for Emily and I's English class...ideas?

In Peter Singer’s essay, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” he makes several fair points regarding the distribution of excess money from households to countries with children who have a greater need of the money. Yet after reading the essay, one might decide to refuse to give excess money to charity due to Singer’s lack of attention on some topics of concern. Singer wrote that Americans should sacrifice their money used on luxuries, but how is “luxury” defined? A “necessity”? He does not believe that one should need a reason to assist strangers who are suffering—and does not give the reader any other motivation to do so. Singer does not believe the percentage of administrative and other fees taken “off the top” significant and therefore ignores the possibility that a donator might not wish to give their money away. How is one to make an informed and willing decision if every point is not explored?

Singer gives a variety of reasons that excess money should be given away. He introduces his first point in the opening paragraph. Singer writes a hypothetical situation of a woman, Dora, who is faced with the decision of saving a nine-year-old boy’s life or keeping a thousand dollars. Dora decides to save the boy, but Singer goes on to explain that if Dora had decided otherwise, to keep the money, that, “she would then have become, in the eyes of the audience, a monster” (Singer, 535). If Dora were to have ignored the boy’s situation the readers would have extrapolated that she was uninterested in others livelihood; an opinion which, on paper, seems unforgivable. This anecdote is included to reveal similarities between donating and actively saving a live. According to Singer, if Dora had not saved the boy, the situation would be equivalent to keeping excess money. With this comparison, Singer demonstrates that people in the United States and other wealthy countries have an ongoing opportunity to save children and adults in need but fail to do so. He implies that, because of this negligence, Americans and others who do not contribute are “monsters.”

Peter Singer then speaks of a man, Bob, who sacrifices a young boy’s life for his Bugatti car. In this second story, Bob is standing next to a switch where train tracks fork and continue in different directions. On one of the tracks, Bob has parked his car; on the other is a young boy that Bob has never met before. In this situation there is an oncoming train that will hit either the car or the young boy and Bob, standing next to the switch, can choose which to save. Bob, a character likely intended to create a contrast with Dora, decides not to save the boy. Singer means this to encourage readers to believe in his solution; he is somewhat unsuccessful, however, because he still did not pose another motivation for the audience to wish to help others. Singer writes this scene in a flippant and cold way, as to upset the reader, when it is not an entirely applicable comparison. The situations Singer describes are quite different from what is faced under the circumstances of contributing surplus money. The obvious difference, of course, is that watching a person die is distinctly different from vaguely knowing that someone, somewhere, might, possibly die without help. Singer, though sarcastically, notes that, “For one thing, to be able to consign a child to death when he is standing right in front of you takes a chilling kind of heartlessness; it is much easier to ignore an appeal for money to help children you will never meet” (535). Aside from a donator’s disconnect with those they are helping, there are other possibilities one might refuse to contribute. When one sends money to charities to help a cause, there is no guarantee that the money will reach a child in need. As Singer mentioned, there is always a percentage taken from the money for administrative purposes, but there is no way to guarantee the money finds its way to those who need it.

Another cause of a reader’s disinclination to donate could be that they feel no obligation to help those they don’t personally know. In an average person’s life, there are close relationships created with family members, friends and others, and when these relationships are made, a link is formed between the two people. The connection is one that allows the pair to sympathize and empathize with the emotions the other can go through: sadness, happiness, anger, et cetera. If one in the pair feels anger with another, the companion can sometimes feel angry as well. The difference is that the second companion does not feel angry because of a wrong done to them, but because the first companion has been hurt. Considering this pattern it becomes apparent that personal connection applies to potential contributors’ decisions. These people who are contemplating giving money often feel sympathy for needy children in other countries, but due to a lack of connection with them, do not feel responsible for their lives.

Farther on, Singer writes that, “Only when the sacrifices become very significant indeed would most be prepared to say that Bob does nothing wrong when he throws the switch”(538). Singer ponders how much one should be willing to give up to save another. He asks whether expecting Bob to give up his foot or leg if it were stuck in the railroad tracks to save the boy to be morally correct. Singer suggests that giving up a leg or foot could be nearly equivalent to donating $200,000 to the needy. A point Singer did not expand on is the definition of the words “excess,” “luxury,” and “necessity”. He says that Americans need to contribute—extreme amounts—any “excess” money, but what exactly is this a question of?

When Singer says “necessity” does he mean to say food, water, clothing and shelter? Is education a necessity or a luxury? Perhaps education until the completion of high school? Are things such as beds, shoes, glasses, Tylenol excesses? If these aforementioned are luxuries, why should they need to be given up? The sole difference between Americans and those in other countries is opportunity. Should those who are lucky enough to have it be asked to give it away? Singer quoted the Conference Board in saying, “An American household with an income of $50,000 spends around $30,000 annually on necessities” (539). This statement is true, but he does not explain if this amount is for a household with three people, or ten. Can we now assume that twenty thousand dollars of a family’s earnings is not needed and demand that it be given away? This no longer seems to be donating. As well when he says this he unintentionally raises another point of interest. If a household makes more than the required amount for necessities in a year, why do they work the entire year? Could they not take off that time and do as they wish with it? Why should the profits of their extra work go to those who do not work for themselves?

Peter Singer’s essay, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” makes numerous point that indicate reasons why one should donate and how much, but he is not entirely successful in his persuasion because he does not fully explore some ideas that affect donator’s decisions. Singer does not investigate the possibility of prospective donators who only wish to help those he or she knows, nor is the chance that he or she might want to have the money they sacrifice sent directly to the disadvantaged. Now though, all areas have been explored, and there is only one question left to be answered. Who will donate?

_________________
"I like baseball, movies, good clothes, fast cars and you. What else do ya need to know?" -John Dillinger

Blind Crow · Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 12:44 pm

I think this was a good essay. No major mistakes as far as I can tell.

What did you get on it?
_________________
I'll walk hand and hand with my faith, step for step with my beliefs, and never fear the path unknown.

Band Geek · Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:20 pm

Oh, thanks

I'm not actually sure. It was our final so there were three other essays that were put into one big grade. So on that I got an A-.
_________________
"I like baseball, movies, good clothes, fast cars and you. What else do ya need to know?" -John Dillinger

Blind Crow · Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 6:18 pm

Congratulations Maggie! This story is a May Spotlight Release!
_________________
I'll walk hand and hand with my faith, step for step with my beliefs, and never fear the path unknown.

Band Geek · Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 10:54 am

Whoah, when was there even voting? I missed it!

But thank you!
_________________
"I like baseball, movies, good clothes, fast cars and you. What else do ya need to know?" -John Dillinger

Blind Crow · Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 10:38 am

Lmao! Maggie! Do you even read the Newswires? I announced it twice! And gave over a month for voting. You're a silly, busy girl.
_________________
I'll walk hand and hand with my faith, step for step with my beliefs, and never fear the path unknown.

Band Geek · Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 12:00 pm

Apparently I missed them somehow...*scrunches brow* Weird.

Sowwe.

_________________
"I like baseball, movies, good clothes, fast cars and you. What else do ya need to know?" -John Dillinger