In Peter Singer’s paper on “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” he explores the possibilities of each and every American giving up about 2/3 of their income. However, rather than simply talking about his own solution as another theory, he tells the reader in so many words that they are wrong. In this paper, I will argue that Singer fails to establish that we are morally required to give to charity. In Peter Singer’s paper he makes the claim that we ought to give up any surplus money we might have and send it to places like Bengal to prevent people from suffering or dying. However, is this really something we are obligated to do?
Peter Singer relies on two main principles that help him establish his conclusion. The first principle state that, “…suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad” and that “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable more importance, we ought, morally, to do it” (605). The first principle is most likely unable to be refuted as almost everyone can agree that suffering and death has nothing to do with good. Now the second principle can be explained by the example Singer gives that if you were in a situation where you were walking past a pond and see a child drowning you ought to pull the child out resulting in wet or muddy clothes, which in no means outweighs the death of a child. In other words, preventing something bad will always compensate ruining a materialistic thing or spending money on something insignificant.
Peter relying on these two principles helps Singer establish his conclusion at the end of his argument. He first states that there are people in East Bengal suffering and dying from lack of food and shelter, which is followed by his first principle. He then continues on by stating that we can easily save 250 dollars by skipping