Table of ContentsIntroductionPeter Singer's Solution to Global PovertyConclusionIntroductionThe problem of global poverty appears to be getting worse with no clear end in sight. The rich are getting richer and those who need help are not getting enough support. It's clear that most people think that everyone, no matter where they live or who they are, should not have to live in conditions of extreme poverty, but don't know how to help. A utilitarian philosopher, Peter Singer, proposed a generous but controversial solution to poverty. However, Singer's argument that we must give up our luxuries to help the world's poor was criticized by Andrew Kuper, who believed that this type of philanthropy stood in the way of more effective long-term strategies and harmed ultimately to the poor. I will build on Kuper's argument and suggest that our moral obligation is not to provide for the financial needs of the poor but rather to use our voice to demand political change. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned"?Get the original essayThe Singer Solution to Global Poverty by Peter SingerIn an article published in the New York Times, Singer suggests that North Americans with of disposable income should donate their excess wealth to needy children abroad rather than spending it on luxury goods for themselves. The singer discusses fictitious cases, one involving a lady named Dora saving the life of a homeless child whom she gave to organ dealers for money to buy a new television and the second involving a man named Bob who lets a child get run over by a train. rather than flipping a switch so the train crushes his Bugatti. Through the analysis of these two cases, Singer suggests that we all face similar dilemmas and that it is our moral obligation to sacrifice our luxuries to save children's lives. Although Kuper believes that Singer's argument is deeply flawed, he, like Singer, agrees. that “the interests of all people (Singer would say animals) must count equally in moral deliberation, and that geographic location and citizenship make no intrinsic difference in the rights and obligations of these individuals” (Kuper, 2002b ). Kuper suggests that donating to the poor is a simple way to ease our consciences, but would ultimately harm those in need because their problems are rooted in a complex interplay of political and economic relationships. He claims that most of the luxury products Singer is asking its readers to stop buying are made in developing countries, which would harm their economies. In order to bring about real change, we must create and reform political institutions and economies through activities such as lobbying and tourism. It is important to note that Singer actually responded to Kuper's criticisms in his article "Poverty, Facts and Political Philosophies." in which he argues that although powerful political figures may interfere with donating some of the money to charity, that does not mean it would have been better if the donation had never happened. Singer explains how charities such as Oxfam are aware of corruption among political leaders and have extensive procedures in place to overcome these obstacles and withdraw from a country if necessary. He also mentions that these organizations contribute to Kuper's ideas by providingbetter tools and equipment that allow people to participate in the global economy, but this does not always help people, especially those in rural areas who cannot transport goods to international markets. In response, Kuper emphasizes that no amount of money will solve the global epidemic of poverty and that more must be done. It explains how rural residents who are excluded from the economy, as Singer mentioned, should be helped by providing transportation rather than looking for other solutions outside of commerce. In his final rejoinder, Singer states that Kuper's argument does not contradict his central claim that it is morally wrong not to sacrifice one's luxuries to help the extremely poor. He states that he would support those who follow Kuper's solution, but he believes that it is difficult to make changes to established political systems and that giving money would not be harmful in the meantime. Although Singer raises strong challenges to Kuper's argument, this does not mean his argument should be rejected or invalidated. I believe Kuper's argument can be strengthened by providing deeper explanations of how poverty is the result of a lack of political rather than monetary support. It is clear that providing billions of dollars in aid to the world's poorest countries will not solve the poverty pandemic, as evidenced by the amount of money that has been given throughout history without a single clear end to poverty is yet in sight. Kuper claims that by providing charitable donations we do more harm than good, but rather than explaining how this happens, he goes off on a tangent about how the money sent to prevent the outbreak from continuing of AIDS in South Africa is nullified by President Mbeki's fabricated views that HIV does not cause AIDS. This argument has been heavily criticized by Singer who considers it irrelevant because some funds will always help those in need and charities have the means to provide the appropriate medications. I agree with Singer in that even though not all the money goes to helping those in need, that doesn't mean we shouldn't give what we can, given that it There are no other ways to help. However, simply extending a person's life does not mean we are helping them. Let's think back to the two examples highlighted by Singer in The Singer Solution to World Poverty. The hypothetical case in which Bob lets a child die rather than destroy his Bugatti does not have the ability to accurately describe the life of a needy child in a developing country because in this case we are assuming that the child that Bob left to die would have led a life similar to that of an average North American. Singer's first case, involving a homeless child, gives a more accurate depiction of the future for people in poor countries, but he doesn't discuss it. Even if Dora saves the homeless child from organ harvesting, she does not improve his quality of life. What if the audience saw Dora save the child only to drop him off on a street corner where he continues to find himself without a home or food, would viewers still be satisfied with Dora's actions? By providing clean water to a small village in Africa or mosquito nets for children to prevent malaria, we provide beneficiaries with tools to prolong their lives, but it will not lift them out of their pre-existing poverty. There is no doubt that many charitable organizations, including Oxfam, are working hard to help those in need. However, they must operate within the regulations put in place bythe government of the country they are helping. While it's nice to provide more sanitation and health care to those who need it, the real help comes from funding national governments and legislatures, which leads to things like better transportation routes and education accessible to citizens. Although Singer briefly mentions the obligation of governments to increase their foreign aid, he does not recognize that governments receiving aid must use it appropriately. In North America, politicians are under pressure to preserve and improve the lives of those who live in their countries by developing strategies to promote social and economic growth while implementing social safety nets for those who do. need. This includes social programs, unemployment insurance, universal health care, free education, homeless shelters and public transportation to ensure residents have the tools needed not only to survive, but to live a life significant and positive. Without these services, those who receive aid donors from foreign aid and charitable organizations will not have the ability to support themselves and live the rewarding lives we all deserve. While I believe Kuper is on the right track, I believe his approach lacks accountability to make real change. To strengthen his argument, I believe he must accept rather than refute the public's desire to help the world's poorest. Even though Singer's attempt to dissolve poverty is extremely idealistic, he places the responsibility on the reader, the general public. Kuper's large-scale solution will not be effective without clear obligations regarding individual morality. While it is clear that politicians are often the ones in a position of power and authority, they rely on others to keep them in that position. . In North America, politicians must campaign with citizens and develop ideas that help improve citizens' lives in order to be elected. If people feel like an elected official isn't keeping promises or implementing harmful legislation, they risk being voted out of office. We often play an active role in deciding what governments do and pressuring them to make decisions that help society. Take LGBTQ rights for example: without the constant lobbying and protests in the United States, politicians who do not feel directly affected by such laws would probably avoid legalizing same-sex marriage for ten, twenty, or even thirty years. However, in North America, politicians are considered public servants and it is not acceptable for those in power to put their personal needs ahead of those of the general public. The kind of pressure brought to bear through lobbying and protests should be brought to bear on politicians around the world. Often, people and governments hand over foreign aid to countries in need and expect those in power to distribute the money equally and fairly to those in need. However, politicians can often be corrupt and succumb to greed. Additionally, in some parts of the world, political leaders rig or even eliminate elections to stay in power. Of course, in these cases they don't care about appeasing citizens in order to win their vote, but that doesn't mean we stop holding them accountable. To truly solve poverty, we must tackle corruption.