masonium.com

A Rebuttal of the "Singer Solution"

In Peter Singer's New York Times article, "The Singer Solution to World Poverty", Singer proposes that it is morally necessary to donate all of one's "luxury funds" to foreign aid. However, Singer argument fails on multiple counts. First, Singer makes bold assumptions about the nature of morality that are relevant to his argument. Furthermore, Singer improperly uses hypothetical analogies to illustrate a major point in his article.

Singer begins the article by retelling a moral dilmena in the Brazilian film "Central Station". Essentially, the protoganist delivers a child for $1000 and, realizing that the child will be killed and sold in pieces, goes through great lengths to retrieve the child. He then compares Dora, the film’s heroine, to the millions of people in "affluent nations of the world" that watched and judged her actions. Continuing the trend, he compares these people, specifically Americans, to a hypothetical individual who basically chooses his financial security over an anonymous child's life. Singer argues that most Americans, who choose to buy new TVs and clothes rather than donate all of their discretionary funds to foreign aid, are no less immoral than Bob, the individual previously mentioned.

Singer makes multiple questionable assumptions in his article. First, he assumes that to be moral is not only a goal but a priority for humanity. His final suggestion, that Americans should donate all money that isn't necessary for survival, hinges on the idea that morality should be put above all else. Although this sounds nice in theory, it is hard to imagine that most people would agree. One could even argue that the notion is somewhat un-American, as Singer's proposition puts the needs of others ahead of an individual's pursuit of happiness. (One could argue that an individual can be happy merely in living, but, again by American standards, life and liberty are separate from the pursuit of happiness.)

Barring the lofty assumption that morality is a primary goal, Singer further assumes that donating to "the world's poor" is morally just. The argument is often made that giving handouts to people hurts them in the long run. However, Singer counters this argument by showing children as the primary benefactor of the reader's good will and noting that children cannot be held accountable for their poverty. Another counter is that, if people suddenly became unreasonably altruistic and followed Singer's advice, their money would be better spent in domestic rehabilitation. Ideally speaking, if every citizen in every affluent country donated to help the homeless in that citizen's country, then domestic poverty in developed nations would decrease dramatically and quickly. Citizens could thengradually focus their efforts on global aid. Although whether this approach is moremoral is easily questionable, it is surely more practical, at least in the realm of practicality one can reach with such idealistic propositions. Most Americans, for instance, would more willingly donate to American efforts than to foreign aid. Singer would agree with this point, as he himself argues that a major difference between Bob and Dora was the seeming anonymity of the child at stake. If the recipient of the help were American, then the potential donator might be instilled with a vague of responsibility.

Although Singer makes rather bold assumptions, they are still reasonable enough to be excusable, at least if they were Singer's only faults. However, Singer also makes inexcusable leaps in logic. For instance, consider his comparison of Dora and the average America. He states that a major difference between the two parties is the anonymity previously discussed. The average American, whom I'll denote as Jim, does not see the child that suffers due to his alleged selfishness. Besides the unreasonable equating of impending death and mere poverty, Singer fails to discuss another a major difference between Jim and Dora as well. Dora would have been judged as immoral had she not tried to save the child because it was her voluntary actionsthat put the child in the situation. Jim, on the other hand, did nothing to put a given Brazilian child into her state of poverty.

To his credit, Singer does acknowledge this when comparing Bob and Dora. He states that Bob did not coax the child into death. However, unlike Jim and like Dora, Bob did force himself into a moral dilemma. Had Bob not parked his nearly priceless, uninsured car on a train track, he would not have hesitated to save the obviously deaf child's life. Bob should rightly feel responsible for the child's death if only because of his stupidity. In order for the analogy to equate to Jim, he would have to have accidentally and single-handedly unleashed AIDS in a third world country or something similarly ridiculous.

These examples illustrate Singer's habit of misusing analogies. He tries to use Dora and Bob to show that not acting to stop injustice is the same as acting to cause it and fails. Bob and Dora do not weigh inaction against action. They, in fact, are deciding between inaction and reaction. They must decide whether or not to correct a situation that they primarily created. Jim, on the other hand, only faces the choice between inaction and action to correct someone else's problem. Therefore, Singer fails to equate inaction on Jim's part with inaction on Bob and Dora's parts, a point that is rather key in his argument.

On the whole, Singer fails to make a convincing argument for a rather dubious solution. This, however, may not be his fault alone. Part of his errors could be blamed on his intended audience. The average New York Times reader most likely wouldn't appreciate a more fully developed philosphical argument on the issue, nor would the editor that imposes space constraints on poor Singer. A longer, albeit more esoteric, essay would've allowed Singer to better argue his points. As it stands however, Singer's article is thoroughly unconvincing.