Everyone wants to find the end of world poverty. Everyone wants to believe they are a good enough person to do to the right thing; whether or not it’s true. If you were faced with a situation either losing your life’s work or saving a unknown child, what would you do? A Utilitarian Philosopher named Peter Singer, developed an article that he believes is “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”. Poverty is a killer of many as young as newborns. Singer believes giving your credit card number could save that newborns life. Does Singer really have the solution? “Singers Solution to World Poverty”, powerful title with powerful statements in it.
Does Singer really have a solution?
Singer states very big claims saying “If the upshot of the Americans failure to donate the money is that one more kid dies on the streets of a Brazilian city”. Credit card numbers and the lives of children are the two options he gives us, seeming like it’s a lifeline to these children. Later in the article, Peter makes you as a reader feel bad by quilting you with a quote, “We, too, have opportunities to save the lives of children”. He guilts you then provides a toll-free charity number to call right underneath it, Is peter saying to basically have your cards ready when reading this? He presents us with a source from a man name Unger, he questions us with “How much would we have to give one of these organizations to have a high probability of saving the life of a child threatened by easily preventable diseases?” Then provides an answer of Unger’s, “By his calculations, $200 in donations would help a sickly two year old transform into a healthy six year old”. His word choices are just in the right wording to make the reader feel bad then sticking a big elephant in the room with the charity phone numbers. Makes you stop and think what does he do with his money?
Singer uses moral questions and strategies to make the reader question their actions. He uses a strategy of question and answer throughout the article. Singer goes about asking the questions most people ask in the back of their minds. Peter defends his argument with , He starts first by asking if the money even goes straight through to the actual people in need or straight to the companies pockets. Peter’s answers be stating it is a business and some has to go to keeping the lights on. Singer seems to aim at morally driven questions that one may not say but think. He makes you as a reader stop and analyze your own thoughts and actions. Sometimes it even seems as if he is yelling at you through a piece of paper. But, is he actually or are we as readers being entitled to our actions trying to justify them.
Peter Singer has a way with his words and how they affect the person reading. He goes about it in a way that most don’t, he goes a deep as evolutionary psychology. Singer goes about human nature and our instinctive behavior and why we act so. The way he goes about evolution is “Human nature just isn’t sufficiently altruistic to make it plausible that many people will sacrifice so much for strangers”. Which if you look at our ancestors homosapines, we our treotoureal with the few properties we have and would kill if someone threatened it or them. In nature we fend for ourselves as in modern day today we still fend every day, fighting death around every corner. We watch our back left and right trying to feel safe in a mad world. He confronted the issues head on and didn’t stop to sugar coat them. He told us as humans were we are wrong, answered the questions and then told us how to fix them.
Peter made us rethink our actions and made us feel guilty. But he also connects to you, putting you in the shoes of people in the wrong place at the wrong time; then follows by asking what would you do as if he was asking for your input. He brings you along his emotional rollercoaster of philosophy and makes you feel humbled. Because, in the end we're all just walking each other home.