Introduction
In Singer’s “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” he proposes that Americans should assume minimalist lifestyles in order to spread the wealth over the globe, which, as he claims, will alleviate world poverty.
While his conclusion is wonderfully altruistic, his method is not only philosophical impossible, but financially irresponsible. His perspective is another problem. Singer does not address a counter-argument, and his article appears to be biased. Finally, in 2014 Americans as a whole are not as well-off as they were when the article was written (1999).
What Makes Singer’s Argument Weak
The argument that Singer makes fails on several levels, including the philosophical and the financial ones. First and most obvious, the Utilitarianism perspective allows for viewing the evident problems that Singer’s solution has. According to the basic tenets of the Utilitarianism approach, no action taken by a person may be aimed at harming the other person, nor can it imply any negative consequences for anyone.
The theory suggested by Singer, however, implies that the person donating to the needy ones should sacrifice his or her own content or even happiness for the charity reasons. While obviously noble, the specified action cannot be posed as a demand to the world consumers and, therefore, is ethically wrong.
From the Utilitarianism standpoint, the solution that Singer suggests means putting the content of the donors at stake, which contradicts the basic tenets of Utilitarianism. The concept of the Effective Altruism is only viable when it is voluntary, which means that making the specified strategy obligatory deprives it of its meaning.
Likewise, the financial implications of the approach provided by Singer are beyond deplorable. According to Singer, people should donate all of their surplus money for the wellbeing of those in need; although seemingly reasonable, the specified solution presupposes in reality that people will not be able to save and, thus, will have only the money for satisfying their daily needs at their disposal.
This may lead to rather drastic risks for most people involved in charity: “Singer does not even address the issue of what would happen if no one had any extra money. There could be serious consequences including at the very least that no one would have any financial stability” (Schaefer para. 9). Therefore, in the worst case scenario, the implementation of the plan proposed by Singer will lead to the financial instability for not only the beneficiaries, but also for the people donating for the wellbeing of the former.
Counter-argument
It should be born in mind, though, that the idea of eradicating poverty, which Singer suggests, can be viewed as viable in specific environment and from a specific point of view. Some researchers argue that, by resorting to more humble consumption rates, the residents of the United States could have averted the increasing poverty rates in the country, as well as create the environment for an economic upheaval. The reasoning behind the counter-argument, however, does not hold any water.
While it can be suggested that the money spent on the consumption of goods could have been used for supporting those in need and financing charity organizations, the mere reduction of consumption rates would have only led to the drop in revenues for certain organizations As a result, the latter would have experienced the need to cut on certain costs, which might have led to a sharp rise in unemployment rates and, therefore, even more drastic poverty problems (Kuper 109).
Moreover, it still must be born in mind that the scale and location of the world poverty are rather uneven and usually based on the level of state economic sustainability, economic growth, inequality, etc. Consequently, assuming that the global poverty issue will be eliminated completely with the reduction of consumption rates in the states with high economic growth index is unreasonable. Hence, the arguments that are traditionally provided in order to support the point of view voiced by Singer do not seem valid.
Conclusion
Despite the fact that Singer’s article is well structured, his conclusions are logically tied together, and his line of arguments is well thought out, the method that he suggests is implausible from both financial and philosophical perspectives. Moreover, the author’s grasp of the subject matter leaves much to be desired in terms of considering the counter-arguments; as a result, the research results can be viewed as not quite credible and lacking objectivity.
As a result, the study conducted by the researcher appears to be quite sloppy and lacking in solid evidence. While the researcher must be credited for carrying out a vast research and suggesting a peculiar idea for addressing what was an obvious concern for the United States at the time, most of the study conclusions lack objectivity to be viewed as a legitimate solution to the poverty issue.
Minimalist lifestyles do not lead to the elimination of poverty; the proposed measure only addresses the issue on a surface, whereas it should affect the leading cause of poverty. The cause in question, in its turn, is a combination of socioeconomic and political factors, including both global and state specific ones.
Therefore, the strategy suggested by Singer fails at its very core as a method aimed at the wrong set of factors, which cannot be considered as independent variables and, therefore, do not affect the issue of poverty neither in the context of the specified problem, nor on a global level. Hence, the solution to global poverty issues is obviously more complex and challenging than the idea suggested by Singer.
Works Cited
Kuper, A. “More than Charity: Cosmopolitan Alternatives to the “Singer Solution” / Poverty, Facts, and Political Philosophies: Response to “More than Charity” / Facts, Theories, and Hard Choices: Reply to Peter Singer / Achieving the Best Outcome: Final Rejoinder.” Ethics & International Affairs 16.1 (2002), 107–128. Print.
Schaefer, G. “Singer’s not-so Persuasive Solution to World Poverty.” Boston College. Web.