Poverty
I have read two viewpoints dealing with the issue of world poverty. Author Peter Singer, a utilitarian philosopher, shares his opinions on this issue in a very unconventional way while author Greg Schaefer focuses his viewpoints on the genius and absurdity of Singer’s solution to world poverty.
Many people would probably agree that the issues surrounding world poverty is both alarming and dismal. Singer is very clever in dealing with this issue. He uses children to represent the poverty stricken population. He knows that people are more inapt to feel sorry for children than adults. Singer’s portrayal of the boy who was sold for his organs is very heartfelt. The story is sad enough to get a reaction out of the reader because of its severe implication. He also implies that if middle to wealthy class people would donate at least $200 this would solve a lot of the issues associated with sick and malnutrition children. At the same time he contradicts himself because he then suggests that $200 is not enough. He reasons that people that give should take up the slack for those who refuse to give. The only way that they can do that is to give most of their money to the impoverished. I think that his reasoning is illogical. It is not practical to have the burden of solving world poverty by giving the torch the givers. It is not realistic to think that everyone will give but why not educate those who don’t give. One way to educate the non givers would be suggesting the benefits of giving.
The story about the man who bought a Bugatti and refused to sacrifice his car for a child’s life is a good example of self gratification. Most people don’t have a problem spending money when they see it as an investment. Bob, the car owner, saw value in his car and not in the strange boy. Although, this sounds harsh it would be much more logical to think people are going to make sacrifices for those things that give them the most self gratification.
In the beginning Schaefer agreed with Singer in his views on world poverty. He also agreed with his solution to the problem. Schaefer himself writes, “I felt very compelled at this point in the article to donate $200 because I realized what little sacrifice I would have to make…” Later on Schaefer disagrees with Singer when he makes the statement that people should donate most of their money to the needy. According to Schaefer, “Earlier I could not see how anyone could object to giving $200 but I can see here how some people would object to giving all their extra wealth”. Even Schaefer realizes how absurd it would be for people to give up most of their money and risk not having “financial stability” for themselves. Although, Schaefer does not provide a solution to poverty he does seem much more reasonable in his views about this issue.
In the end I agree with Schaefer’s viewpoint on world poverty. My solution to the problem would be to educate non givers on the benefits of giving such as tax write offs. I think that if people were more aware of the benefits of giving they would probably give more.
