English Composition 1101
September 14, 2016
Thousands of people all over the world are dying every year because of poverty related illness and financially stable American consumers are to blame. This is the argument presented by Peter Singer in his essay, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”. Peter supports this claim by saying Americans should redirect all income not spent on necessities to organizations who help overseas needy people because it's our moral responsibility. Singer's argument is oversimplified. Even if every American donated as much money as they could possibly spare it would just create a new set of problems. Singer's argument places blame on innocent American consumers, proposes an unrealistic solution and overlooks the real problem.
Singer's argument places the blame for a world of poverty related problems squarely on the shoulders of every American family. Americans spend nearly one-third of its income on unnecessary things. Singer thinks that spending money on these things while knowing that the money could be used to save lives is no better, morally, then getting paid for killing children. The truth is that the average American family is just doing a perfectly good job at living in a capitalistic society. Why are we Americans to blame for living the way we've been taught to our whole lives? What about the governments of the countries where these poor children live? What about the irresponsible parents of these children? Americans work for their money, pay high taxes for the right to live in this country, and are entitled to do whatever they please with their money. Our economy is dependent on Americans spending their surplus money, not giving it away.
Singer can’t force anyone to donate money, so to get his point across, he created two hypothetical situations in his favor to help you decide if you want to donate or not. Bob parked his Bugatti by a railroad track and...