Peter Singer Argument

To give or not to give? That is the widespread question which Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics has addressed in his piece, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, distributed by the New York Times Magazine. Singer says “The formula is simple: whatever money you’re spending on luxuries, not necessities should be given away.” Singer’s argument depends on a delicate balance of human ethics, natural compulsions and decisions, not all of which are credible or realistic to pronounce in today’s society; Singer’s “solution”’ though visionary and noble, is conclusively not limited thoroughly enough to the world of realism to be a practical choice to fight against world poverty. The pros of Singer’s theory, although few, are very influential and …show more content…
During World War II, President Roosevelt introduced government deficit expenditure, and the increase of production and jobs assisted America out of the Great Depression. History and realism supports the critics’ opinions of the “Singer’s Solution”; The truth is that money spent on extravagances can sometimes do more good than harm, such as Princess Diana’s death. No matter that she was divorced from Prince Charles, she was adored and during her time of death “her funeral … was broadcast[ed] worldwide.” As well as “magazines [publishing] her last moment[s].” (Wikipedia Entry in Princess Diana Pieces) In the midst of a tragedy such magazines, a said luxury, goes towards giving people jobs and assisting the economy; money spent on Chi magazine goes to journalists who work at the publishing company in question. Princess Diana’s death brought in so much money and press towards the company to help them make more money, now that they had a reputation of refutable gossip stories that such luxuries proved to help the writers of that magazine in more ways than one. Money spent on what Singer may call “necessities”, such as clothing, goes towards large companies which might abuse workers in sweatshops to mass produce T-shirts and