Analysis Of Peter Singer's Solution To End World Poverty

If one had an opportunity to positively impact someone’s life, should they do it? Most people would immediately answer yes. But what if it negatively impacts their lives? Should they still be willing to make a difference? Many individuals would hesitate before answering because it is human nature to want to help others, but it also human nature to want to live comfortably. Does this mean they are unintentionally selfish people? According to Peter Singer, in order to live a morally decent life, individuals must follow his solution to end world poverty. Singer’s solution to end world poverty is to donate the extra savings of every individual towards organizations that give to the less fortunate rather than spend it elsewhere. Singer further …show more content…
If they are not able to live comfortably after donating, then it is best not to make money donations. Consider the concept of self-preservation for example. Self-preservation is the behavior that ensures the survival of an individual; it is regarded as human instinct. In order to survive comfortably, people should be able to spend their earnings on what allow them to do so for example more space, extra utilities and modernized technology to maintain communication, etc. Nevertheless some are not able to do both. They want to help, but they are not able to spend money on both donations and assets that let them live comfortably such as cars, additional space and utilities, technology, etc. Even more, some have already spent most of their savings onto items that serve this purpose and are therefore not in the position to spend additional large sums of money. If they are to do so, they would be in the same position as those they are trying to help live comfortably. Thus they would not be able to help those individuals further. Since Singer’s solution wouldn’t allow certain individuals to donate and live comfortably, it is