In Singer’s solution, he says that every penny that you are not spending on necessities, you should be donating.
I would agree that it is important that everyone donates to charity, but I disagree with the extremism of Singer’s formula. Although it would be nice if everyone in the world who is impoverished suddenly was able to live like everyone in the middle class, it would be drastic for a person to donate that much. I think Singer’s intentions are what we need in our society today. The world would be a much better place if people had to struggle to even live, while others are born into an easy life. If we went with Singer’s plan, people wouldn’t die due to sickness that could be easily prevented, hunger that could easily be fed, or thirst that could easily be quenched. However, this is where our ideas vary.
I think that it would be better if we didn’t live off of the bare necessities because it could help in the long run. With that extra money, a person could fund research to find a cure to diseases that ravage foreign countries or find a source of food that could prevent the starvation of billions of people. However, people should still give away some of their money to help those who need it, but maybe not all. I say the main issue is how some of the top 1% don’t donate enough and instead choose to have more luxuries. According to The Atlantic, in 2011, the Americans whose earnings were in the top 20% donated on average 1.
3 percent of their income to charity, while the people with earnings in the bottom 20% donated 3.2 percent of their income. I believe that if the people with earnings in the top 20% donated more, then the wealth distribution would be more equal so that people in the bottom 20% would have to sacrifice less. Another issue with Singer’s idea is that different people require different things. One person might be perfectly fine with living off of the bare necessities, but another person might struggle with that, and that struggle could be harmful to them as well.
