Singer Solution to World Poverty

Peter Singer discusses his article from the New York Times "The Singer Solution to World Poverty". In an interview with Dan Rather, he states he thesis which is that the developed world should give away all money not needed for necessities to the developing world.

http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/19990905.htm

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Peter
• Singer
• Solution
• to
• World
• Poverty
• New
• York
• Times

[MrCarlosBarrera]

I teach this piece in a high school English class. I also show an edited clip of the film "Central Station". I want students to see mulitple perspectives--this year I taught the piece the week after the Haiti Earthquake.

Students can't see themselves giving away all their money as they have a hard time defining what are luxuries and what are necessities. They smell Socialism or other ills. The truth for them is somewhere in the middle of Singer's extremes.

[rosiesmard]

Very good video ! It reminds the rich to donate those who suffer and poor who are so many in this world. Not just pay attention to luxury things every minute.

[Dathinkingman]

@JULESRULES9969 yea he acknowledge he does not practice what he preach but atleast he has an ideal where we should shun consummerism and live with simplicity thats a big step considering the current mottto of the modern western society is that "to be selfish , is to be good" the mere idea is enuff as an inspiration

[JULESRULES9969]

@Dathinkingman Wow did you just miss the fact that he only gives 20% of his income. Hes pretty well off too.

[Dathinkingman]

wow peter singer is an inspiration !

[engun1]

@nuncle2000 The idea only contradicts itself if your assertion that "no one works for no marginal benefit" is true, right? But Singer always argues that much of these sacrifices do not require any significant sacrifice on one's own part. How would that bankrupt anything?

[nuncle2000]

Just read this article for my ethics class, and it's hilariously flawed. I usually don't side with Kant, but I like the way the idea of universalized maxims addresses this issue. People only work reletive to incentive, and if everyone gave away all their money beyond necessity, charity would be bankrupt. No one works more for no marginal benefit, so the labor market in Singer's world would not provide any money to give to charity at all. The idea contradicts itself.

[rrp1973]

Even if you agree with the extreme we should only live a bare necessity life his argument is still flawed. It assumes our incomes are fixed and guaranteed. I don't see why it is less morally valid for me to save my excess income in order to pay for my future necessities than it is to provide them for others today. Perhaps a better argument would be to give away your left over wealth when you die.

[Alondite993]

I just read this article in my English Composition II class and I am reluctant to agree with Singer's take on the matter. What's your opinion?