Peter Singer's Solution To Poverty

A professor of bioethics, Peter Singer, published an article in The New York Times Magazine, arguing his “solution” to poverty. He claims that what money you’re currently spending on luxuries should be given to those who need need food, medicine, and other basic life necessities. The issue of poverty is so complex, however, that every solution has pros and cons. In Singer’s solution though, the cons outweigh the pros.
Obviously, most people would take any opportunity to help out a fellow man who is in need. But that same helpful person also wouldn’t mind working harder to move up the socioeconomic ladder. This is the dilemma of Singer’s argument. The positive of Singer’s solution is it helps supply basic needs to help improve living conditions of the needy. A problem that arises with Singer’s solution is that if you have to give all extra money away, what is the incentive to work hard …show more content…
The world has never been fair, there will always be someone poorer than you and someone richer. Even Jesus saw it can’t be easily fixed when in Philippians he said “The poor will always be among you.” The disciples, like Singer, criticized a woman for wasting perfume that could have been sold and donated to the poor. However, Jesus replied saying it was a nice thing she did for him, and not to criticize her. The perfume was a luxury, but Jesus blessed the woman for using it to prepare him for burial. So where is the line of luxury for Singer? If he thinks that everything not keeping you alive is luxury, what kind of life is that to lead? Showering could be a luxury, but living dirty isn’t a life. A nice bed could be a luxury, but with back problems is no way to live. Also, when you realize all the jobs that are created through the industries of luxuries, if those luxuries stop being bought, all those people are out of jobs. Poverty is too complex for this solution and this solution would cause more poverty by taking away