"The Singer Solution to World Poverty" Response

What kind of world is this? How should I live in it? Prior to reading “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” I might have replied that perhaps I feel that I am a good person for donating that $10 at alternative gift giving as opposed to buying a material present for a friend, who would almost undoubtedly forget about it a year, if not a month, or even days after they received it from me. I mean, it’s probably more than most people do right? It’s a smart, right? Little did I know how drastically this article would change my views on giving.

The article starts off with a short antidote about a retired schoolteacher, Dora, and how she had the choice between benefiting herself, having an opportunity to gain $1000 in delivering a helpless boy to be slaughtered, or protecting the boy yet not gaining anything from it; perhaps at most, a sense of dignity and morality. Singer was quick to point out how many of us, had Dora chose to sacrifice the young boy for personal gain would have been harsh critics of her, accusing her to be inhumane and perhaps even calling her a monster. However, if we looked at ourselves in that same situation; that is, if we looked in the mirror and if we were actually in that situation, not judging someone else’s actions, as that is very easy to do, but rather if we were offered a thousand dollars, in exchange for being ignorant to a child’s life, would we really not take that cash? It is very likely that most people would still not take the money, as they would still look at it as being immoral. Yet, if I may pose an even different situation, what if the amount of money being offered to you is even more substantial? What if you were offered $10,000? $100,000? Could any of us honestly say that we wouldn’t think about sacrificing the boy, who probably does not have a future, at least a future that would be affable? This relates to the hypothetical story which Peter Unger presented in his book, “Living High and Letting Die”:

Bob had most of his finances invested in a Bugatti, an uninsured, very pricey car. He parked on a train track, which was diverted so that the train would be forced to go in the opposite direction. When he saw a small child playing on the track, on the track the train was diverted into, he could’ve switched the track by pressing a switch so that his Bugatti would get totaled, but the child would be saved. In this situation, the author presented Bob deciding that his car was worth more than the child’s life, and let the child die. The first time I read that short story through, I thought to myself: What a conceited guy. Who does he think he is? Had he been that child playing on the tracks, oblivious to the approaching train, wouldn’t he have been eternally grateful to that man who saved his life? Unfortunately, the author offered me a mirror to look at myself in. Unger states that an amount of money we all take for granted, though possibly substantial if you were looking to buy an iPod or another small item which was not a necessity; that a mere $200, could support a child for 4 years, making that child into a healthy individual. “By his calculation, $200 in donations would help a sickly 2-year-old transform into a healthy 6-year-old…” (2, Singer).

I thought to myself: Wow, that’s really great and all, but I personally don’t have $200 to invest in something like saving a child’s life, no matter how priceless that may be. Singer, seemingly unwilling to accept my stubbornness on this matter, continued to delve deeper into Bob’s situation. Singer posed a slightly different situation, asking that if Bob had something substantial to lose himself with the car; say his toe, foot, or even his entire leg, would his choice to not divert the train in order to save his car, (and now his toe, foot, or leg) become more justified? Would most people not criticize Bob had this been the situation?

Singer proceeded the point out that most people would argue that they shouldn’t do more of their share if they donate, since nobody else does. I know personally that I might regret a decision of donating money to charity and then being teased for not having a big TV, or not having a better computer. I myself still stood firmly on my position: I probably did more than most people last year, putting aside $10 for charity (even though it had a partially ulterior motive to it).

Singer was relentless: he pointed out how much regret we should feel spending money on luxuries that could be spent on saving a child’s life. How we should feel fulfilled that we helped another person’s life. The lines which truly made me stop and think were in the last paragraph. Singer pointed out how since we, the reader, have now been well educated about how much a relatively small amount of money can do, to the point that neglecting it would be no better than watching the child get run over by the train. It became obvious that helping a child by donating a mere $200 was not much of a choice, but rather, an obligation we all have. Singer turned me, an innocent reader, into the monster.

“When Bob first grasped the dilemma that faced him as he stood by that railway switch, he must have thought how extraordinarily unlucky he was to be placed in a situation in which he must choose between the life of an innocent child and the sacrifice of most of his savings. But he was not unlucky at all. We are all in that situation.” (4, Singer).

To offer an opinion about what this world is like and how we should live in it: the world is a place where even the smallest effort can make a huge difference. We may think that our actions go unseen, but even if they are, it shouldn’t matter. Bob may have thought that sacrificing his expensive car to save someone’s life; someone who wouldn’t even know their life was saved by Bob, would be not much compensation for such a big sacrifice on his part. However, in my opinion, the true spirit of giving is when the donor remains unknown to whoever receives their donation; whether it is their life or $200, so that the donor doesn’t give to make themselves feel better and be recognized as a charitable person. But rather, giving without wanting recognition so that the donation was in the spirit of helping the person, and not just to make themselves feel good.