Peter Singer a bio ethics professor proposes that people of higher class quit spending on luxuries and donate to poverty riddled people instead. He also suggests to only spend money on necessities and anything else be donated to charitable organizations. He is very persistent in his claims. Although Singer’s Solution satisfies the idea of diminishing poverty, it is a farfetched plan.
Singer’s solution would create a sense and provoke more to donate. Imagine saving child’s lives, possibly hundreds. Phil always gave his extra money towards saving children in poverty. He said there was nothing more self satisfying then giving to the less fortunate, he knew he would be helping out a kid or kids and give them food and shelter, he thought of himself as a hero and cherished what he has done and still does. It is important to cherish what you do in life so you don’t have any regrets when it’s your time. This is all feel good charity, but there are other things to do in America to contribute to society besides giving all of your luxuries away.
Singer’s Solution would create a panic within the U.S. economy. Think about how many jobs would be lost and businesses closed due to no more extra spending. Suzy went to work as a travel agent. When she got to the airport where she worked she noticed there was an odd silence and not many people around as usual. This went on for about a week until she got called on by her manager and she was let know her services were no longer needed. She then had to go home and let her children know they had no more income. Spending extra cash in America is necessary to keep our society running as it is supposed to. Where is the good in donation if it creates more problems in the process?
Singer’s solution is an ignorant plan. Singer