The article "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" featured in the New York Times Magazine brings up an issue with modern society. Peter Singer addresses the needs of worldwide poverty and how we can help resolve it. His answer to procuring this issue is stated as this "The formula is simple: whatever money you're spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away." The problem with this "formula" however is not quite as simple as Peter Singer makes it out to be. Anytime we are given a formula for something, ultimately we must find a solution for it. So when I look at such a statement, I see it as problem we are given that we must find an answer for. The only way to find such an answer is to weigh out both the pros and cons of his statement.
Starting with the pros of Peter Singers philosophy there is only two I can truly see. The first pro of Singers solution to world poverty brings me to Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Maslow created an experiment to understand what drives people to succeed in life. In his experiment he created a pyramid structure which contains five levels, each level being divided by physiological needs, basic needs, and growth needs. Maslow believed that in order for us to further progress up on this pyramid we must satisfy the basic needs before advancing to the higher levels. The first tier of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs are basic needs which are, physiological needs such as food, water, warmth and rest.
The Second tier of this pyramid still falls under basic needs however these needs are about the welfare or well being of a person, such as security and safety. When there is a shortage or deficiency of these basic needs, the desire of obtaining these needs become more potent the longer they are denied. For example if someone is deprived of food for an extended period of time the hungrier they will become. Perhaps if one who was more fortunate than say someone in a third world country provided these two basic levels of needs, it would motivate the person to become self sustainable. Meaning if one person donated money to a child to provide food, shelter and an education, the child with the education could advance to obtaining a job. Which would cause a domino effect of becoming self sufficient. Sometimes people just need a way to get off their feet and I believe if we fulfill these basic needs we could push them to become greater.
Which brings me to my second pro of Peter singers formula. If we started donating to charities or even donating ourselves after hearing stories in other countries, we could help people for an extended period of time without them having to worry about money for rent, food, or other necessities. In the United States the average income for a household is fifty two thousand dollars a year. In comparison to say a country like Lebanon the average income for a house is four thousand eight hundred dollars a year.
Due to the recent war in Syria, many Syrians have been displaced in countries such as Lebanon and cannot find jobs. A story that I was just recently told really tugged at my heart. A woman from Syria relocated to Lebanon with her husband, two daughters and son. However her husband and son were found by the Lebanese government. The government deported them back to Syria to fight in the war going on there, leaving her to fend for herself. Due to the circumstances of how difficult it is to find a job "off the books" there, she found herself in an unusual predicament. She had no money for rent to shelter her two daughters. So the owner of the space she was renting made an agreement with her. This woman was given a difficult choice of either scarring her children and subjecting them to perversions, while still maintaining a roof over their heads, or living on the streets with two girls which could also lead to such perversions and more imminent danger. By donating, to those in need, we could stop things like this. Think of the impact this would make on all three of these women's lives.
However bringing myself to the con's of Singers formula there are nearly double that of the pro's. The first con of his formula provides us with a solution but a short term solution. If everyone in the United States gave away all of their luxury money it would cause the downfall of the American economy and destroy the value of the dollar. With the downfall of the economy and the American dollar you can still help others but you cannot help yourself. We need to stimulate the economy and keep the value of the dollar strong. If we are not stimulating the economy by purchasing things, this would cause an influx on how the consumer business works. The consumer industry is based off of the demand for goods. The greater the demand of goods, the more goods we produce, which then will lower the cost to the population. If we are not purchasing as much, we are now exporting more and importing less.
Which brings me to my next con, less production of goods means a higher rate of unemployment. If we are not purchasing as many goods we would stop financially supporting businesses, which would ultimately lead to many of these businesses closing or cause many, if not all people to get laid off, leaving little to no jobs left for Americans. Similarly with a reduced desire of consuming goods it would lead people to less of a desire to work. If the number of jobs are limited an equilibrium must be created, meaning with less jobs being available and us consuming less, wages would drop drastically. Which means we simply would not prosper, and that in itself is all about the American dream.
I completely disagree with Peter Singers formula. The number of cons simply outweigh that of the pros. With the drastic affects the cons would make on America I just do not see his plan being feasible. Living in reality however, I would like to try to find a balance. I absolutely do believe we should donate money to those in need, however I do not believe we should donate all of our luxury money to those in need. Also religiously, I am obligated yearly to donate 2.5% of my income to those in need. After taking all of this into account, I realized I could donate more than just 2.5% and cut down on how many luxuries I buy.