The Singer Solution to World Poverty Article Analysis

In Peter Singer’s essay “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” he makes some very sweeping and generalized statements. These are for the most part backed up by statistics and some very well-thought-out hypothetical scenarios that can make every human being stop and reevaluate their entire lives. The first major claim revealed in this essay is that we as a society use so much of any money earned on very materialistic and unnecessary items when we could be spending even just a small portion of this on helping people in need, so why don’t we? The second major claim would be that as human’s we tend to follow this mob mentality for pretty much everything, so if other people are not donating to charities even if they are financially able then we are much less likely to. The last major claim I would like to analyze is that it is somewhat counterproductive to be guilting people into donating, which isn’t the point of this essay even though he is doing just that. However, to his point no matter what happens for the money to get sent somewhere it still gets there. Even though it’s great that these charities would hypothetically be getting the proper funding, from a morality standpoint it isn’t the best way to get there. 

The first major claim is that as a society we are very frivolous with how we spend our finances when we “should” be using some of this to support causes other than ourselves and anyone in our own lives. So how come we haven’t been doing this enough? When even just a small donation could save a child's life. This is just the first of many statements that are meant to make us rethink our values and play with our emotions. Along with this, he shows that as there is with everything ethical distinction can come into play with how our minds can care so deeply about the people closest to us versus a child or family from across the world who needs compassion. Such as in the train example, Bob and all of us would be less likely to save a child that we don’t know anything about, even if we may feel some sort of ethical obligation. Singer goes on to compare this train example, and why we don’t see ignoring donating to charities as the same unethical thing. Singer is not calling us heartless or bad people per se, but he is a utilitarian philosopher, so has those natural values that will judge if acts are wrongful based on the aftermath. Regarding the example with Dora and her unknowingly sends a boy to his death, or maybe she did know, she wrestles with this as one would, Singer makes the factual claim that America or other more well off countries condemned Dora for not giving him a better life than the one she had. But, as I mentioned earlier people in the US have the funds to buy whatever they want, when people in third world countries would see Dora’s small apartment as very luxurious. Again, this is all to make us feel sympathy, especially when death is mentioned that will automatically trigger an emotional response. 

We as a society have always followed this mob mentality of life, whether or not we are conscious of it, it is a known fact. This has been an even more common phenomenon in recent years in the rise of social media, and different social justice causes “trending” and then people not speaking about them once something is not popular anymore. This is the main theme throughout Singer’s essay, we are so quick to follow others even when it may not be the most moral decision. He says himself after asking the question if a group of people separately are in the same moral predicament would it make it right for one person (Bob) to do the same which would be sacrificing the child. Instead of mob mentality, he calls it follow-the-crowd ethics which he compared to the ethics of germans that lead them to turn their heads when while the Nazis were committing nefarious acts. This is a pretty extreme comparison since the majority of people in this situation had to behave exactly as they were told or they would be killed. 

With facts and values, it is very important to have a fairly equal amount of both in an argumentative paper. They are interconnected since we learn facts about society and the world every day of our lives, and these can oftentimes carry over into our values. There are also different types of values, there are objective values that are objectively morally corrupt things that the vast majority of people will agree with except the select few. A couple of examples would be not to kill someone unless it's self-defense, not being racist or sexist, etc. The subjective values are our more individualized ones. The singer does have a mix of both, but through analyzing the paper, and his major claims they seem more value-based. However, this is a very common thing in philosophy, it is typically not a factual or evidence-based subject. With the first major claim in this essay, he does have a factual and backed up the statement that the “average family in the United States spends almost one-third of its income on very unnecessary things.  Singer does a good job of giving us these big, dramatized statements that are factual and can open people’s eyes. The topic of this essay is about a topic that is itself an objective value, most of us will agree that we should be giving to people in need, rather than spending it on frivolous things.  He then gives more facts about how the US was/ is giving substantially less money to overseas aid agencies, and that with another major claim that even if we are not at the target goal of what should be donated the money is still getting there. Singer gives these facts and reveals his own subjective opinion that we could still be doing much more. His reasoning is backed up, and he has claims that would be common knowledge and opinions. 

After analyzing this essay, I feel like my opinions about Singer have changed a little bit. I think when reading this essay at first it can seem like one big guilt trip, and maybe that is kind of the case. However, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and definitely for somebody in the discipline of Philosophy values certainly matters, and I don’t agree with all of the utilitarian values, since I think unhappiness and pain are just a part of our existence especially when it comes to different mental illnesses, we cannot always control how we’re feeling and if its a bad day we might not be the kindest to others. I do however in my own life try to bring as much happiness as I can to others, and I usually try to be the best person I can be. But this is impossible to do all the time, and in a society and country where there is always some sort of argument or violence going on it can make us feel down. Other than the ideas that I forementioned the overarching idea is that if every financially capable American donates a good portion of their excess income, world poverty could be sufficiently lower. If everyone capable were to do this then yes we could help a good amount of people, however, it is difficult to say with not only poverty getting worse but also many other worldwide catastrophes. Being a good, and giving person are incredibly important and necessary, and we should teach others to be the same way. There is enough corruption and violence and it won’t help society to have any more of that. If we cannot donate money to causes important to us, then we can still share on social media to bring attention to the cause, participate in protests, join the peace corp, etc. Singer may only be speaking about financial donation, and while these are important, sometimes other ways of helping can do way more.