Response To Peter Singer

` The world is not a pretty place and is hardly fair. It would drive one mad simply listing all the things wrong and all the injustices incurred at any one moment. The most insulting part of this whole situation is that almost all of these catastrophes can be prevented. The world is home to genocides, famines, war, orphans, and homelessness, all while also harboring food wastage, one dollar sandwiches, and private jets. It is human nature to try to right perceived injustices, and there clearly are many. Peter Singer believes the way to right the scales is to have the prosperous donate all the money they do not need for their direct survival. This solution, though made with noble intentions is horribly misguided.
It is important with an argument such as this not to get blinded by …show more content…
The argument’s downfall lies in the nuances and the greater implications of the proposition. Most prosperous people live in capitalist economies. These economies function through want and humanity's constant desire for more. If one desires a larger house, they must work harder or pursue a higher paying job. This causes a constant upward mobility, people work harder and harder and rise up the ranks in order for a better life. If a baker works harder or bakes better bread they are rewarded with more money which can then be spent on luxury goods, justifying their hard work. The large effort expended and investment required to become a specialized professional is justified by the high paycheck. People will always seek better lives, which are obtained through hard work, thus people are always working harder. However, Singer;s proposal eliminates the engine and upward motion of the economy. In this proposal once people earn the bare minimum to sustain themselves, all of their excess income will be shipped away. After people reach this hypothetical bar they will have no incentive to earn more or work harder. If