The few pros of Singer’s proposal are, at first glance, important and convincing. The money, prospering individuals are spending on luxuries, can total to a great amount, which can help pay for food and medical aid for the poor. With an increase of food and medicine, the rate at which children and adults die due to starvation and lack of medical help, can quickly decrease. Nations will less frequently struggle with high mortality rate among newly born and children as well as among adult people suffering from curable diseases. In addition, the donated money can allow for the improvement of educational opportunities for all individuals, which can result in advanced technological, scientific and humanities-focused research and discoveries. Ultimately, Singer’s utopian idea of a cure for world poverty, promises a developed, healthy, and educated world. Need essay sample on "“The Singer Solution to World Poverty”" ? We will write a custom essay sample specifically for you for only $/page
In my opinion, although Singer’s philosophy may be morally right, it is not in any way feasible. Due to America’s culture, it is our way to feel the need to have more than just the necessities, and although it may sound immoral to say so, it’s highly unlikely that this way of life is going to change. For example, Singer suggests donating all but $30,000 of one’s income to charity, because that is the cost of living. But, it is often the tendency of families, particularly those with children, to attempt to save as much money as possible, so that if disaster should strike, or a child would like to go to college, the family would be prepared. Taking this fact into consideration, would Singer still recommend only living by necessities, and giving up the habit of saving money? Creating a savings is a way for people to prevent economic crisis if disaster should strike, or to ensure that they will not be one day doomed to poverty. If they are to donate all but the minimum, then how should American’s secure their future?