Singer's Utopian Solution To World Poverty

Peter Singer’s provocative essay has aggravated a diversity of strong emotions in me, varying from shame to admiration, to anger and protest. In his writing he’s using some very dangerous techniques in order to attain his goal of getting readers to truly believe in his ideas, rethink their values and change their lifestyles. It is questionable though weather Singer is really successful at this difficult task.

At the beginning of the essay Peter brings up the story of Dora and the boy sold to organ peddlers. He points out that many people don’t want to notice the analogy of Dora’s situation and the situation where a person is making a choice to ignore the existing problem of poverty. “If the upshot of the American’s failure to donate the money is that one more kid dies on the streets of a Brazilian city, then it is in some sense just as bad as selling the kid to the organ peddlers.” I thought it was kind of inappropriate to compare letting a child be used as a donor and knowingly killing him, to failing to donate money that would make a child better off. Even though I believe that ignoring poverty is contributing to it, just as buying a prostitute for a night is a contribution to the thriving of prostitution, I could see how a lot of people would find this comparison offensive, and I was unhappy with the road that Singer chose.

The second story that Peter is developing into an argument is the story of Bob, his Bugatti and the choice he made to save his car and let the child be run over by a train. “We seem to lack a sound basis for drawing a clear moral line between Bob’s situation and that of any reader of this article with $200 to spare who does not donate it overseas. These readers seem to be acting at least as bad as Bob….”writes Singer. At this point I myself was offended and confused by the quotation because I do not believe that I would ever put all my money into a car and rather save that than a life of a child. I do not believe I am in the same situation as Bob because I do not have all my life savings put into one possession, and I do not value possessions over lives.

I suddenly started to feel attacked and therefore found myself on the immediate defensive. In no time, I realize I’m on the other side of the barricades. I sat back and stopped reading for a second to put my thoughts together, and to structure in my mind the beliefs I have on this issue, since I wanted to preserve them as they were and not let Singer’s aggression potentially result in modifying them. So here is what I believe. Having 19 years of my life spent in Ukraine, a developing country which suffered enormously from a sick soviet regime, I had witnessed poverty numerous times and I realize the whole seriousness of the problem. I agree that most of us do absolutely nothing to help any needy people (and not just in third world countries) or even get involved in any other social issues. I very often feel ashamed for doing not enough to make this world a better place.

I have also noticed that Americans seem to be more apathetic about some global social issues than other prosperous nations. I am aware about all of the defects of any consumer society and disagree with a philosophy behind it. I know that for people who never experienced even one tiny bit of what millions are going through every day, it is difficult to fully understand the horror and pain that is filling some places in the world and so it is important to open our eyes and not to live in our cute isolated world. I believe all of this. What is my problem with Singer’s statements then?

It was not his extreme examples and somewhat offensive analogies which put me into a hostile mood; it’s his constant mocking and humiliating and digging the reader in the head. He is progressively working on manipulating you to send you on a guilt trip, as if his only aim is to hear you screaming: вЂ?I am nothing!” I blame Singer for turning an originally positively disposed person into a fighter. He gave birth to thoughts like: “If I call to donate money, that would mean I agree with every word Singer said.” and вЂ?Do I concur with Singer that I am a heartless and cruel creature and the only way to rehabilitate myself is to make that call now?”

As I kept reading, somewhat unexpected, I notice Singer finally talking about facts. Singer reveals that UN recommends for the U.S. to donate 0.7 percent of its gross national product to help developing countries fight the poverty. He then presents the shocking information of how far below the recommended amount the US was last year. For a second I was satisfied that Singer brought some validity in to what he was saying and hoped that perhaps his essay would take a different turn.

However, just as soon as Singer made a strong down-to-earth argument, he hits the reader with the statement that any income of an American household above $30.000 should be sent overseas. “The formula is simple”- Peter says- “Whatever money you’re spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away.”

To me it seems reasonable and right to give up something we could do without in order to save someone else’s life. But