In Peter Singer’s “The Life You Can Save”, Singer provides a basic logical argument that concludes that everyone, who is able, could and should donate to aid agencies, and if you are not donating to aid agencies, then you are doing something wrong. The statements preceding this conclusion are as follows: “Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad. If it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so. Finally, by donating to aid agencies, you can prevent suffering from lack of food, shelter, and medical care, without sacrificing anything nearly as important” (672). In this paper, I will challenge Nozick’s view by providing realistic evidence from everyday life and offer an alternate solution to the issue of how to lessen and ultimately eradicate world poverty.
According to time.com, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world with an estimated net worth of $90.6 billion (Time). Out of the top 5 billionaires, He is the only one who has not signed the Giving Pledge, the promise created by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett for the superrich to give away at least half of their wealth. He has also never appeared on the Philanthropy 50, a list of America’s 50 largest donors, that is published yearly by The Chronicle of Philanthropy. With his newfound wealth, all eyes are on Bezos who claims seek to help people “at the intersection of urgent need and lasting impact” (NY Times). Bezos and relatives have donated about $100 million on charities, a mere 0.01% of his fortune. In my opinion, it is immoral to sit on that much wealth and not give back to any community.
Oprah Winfrey, on the other hand, is the most charitable celebrity by a huge margin. With a net worth of $2.9 billion, Winfrey has still managed to donate over $40 million to charities. Winfrey has been known to donate to many different causes, but her primary focuses are education, arts, and culture. A self-made woman, Winfrey had every right to invest, save, and cherish her newfound wealth, but she has been nothing but generous ever since she became widely famous.
In order to get the reader to align himself with the compassion associated with humanity, Singer provides the drowning child example. In this scenario, you are in a suit and on the way to work when you notice a drowning child. If you save the child, you will be forced to change clothes and ultimately be late for work. If you continue on your way to work and do not help the child, then you will arrive on time, but with the knowledge that you willingly let a child die. Most people, without hesitation, claim they would help the child because a human life is invaluable when compared to docked pay or clothing. Also, because saving the child seems to be a natural inclination, it can be noted that our most inherent instinct is to help our fellow man. This connection leads Singer to believe that we, as a community of human beings, should assist everyone in need. Singer proposes that since we are so quick to determine that we should and would save the drowning child, then we should have the same sense of urgency to help all children in need even if they are not in close proximity to us. At this point in Singer’s argument, I have nothing against the logic that was used to get to this current position. If aid agencies are the way to prevent easily avoidable deaths, then we should donate to them. But the questions of who should donate and how much will be discussed later on.
Let us shift our focus to why donating to children we cannot see is seemingly more difficult. While the drowning child requires immediate attention, other children in different parts of the world are often neglected for various reasons. The first reason is that many people assume that someone else will step up and accept responsibility. If you get a postcard in the mail with a picture of a starving child, many people presume that at least 50 other people in the area received the same card. Surely, someone would recognize the child’s plight and assist them, but unfortunately, that is rarely the case. The next reason is that a fair number of people believe that they are being scammed if they donate to certain agencies. While this may be the case with some pseudo-agencies, a quick google search could easily alleviate this concern. Finally, people who are donating are not doing so out of a moral obligation. While donating for selfish reasons is still a charitable endeavor at the end of the day, it does not ensure that people will continue to donate even when no one is watching. Allow me to elaborate. The selfish reasons can include but are not limited to: tax deduction, publicity stunt, or even feel-good motivations. A study conducted by Alexander Genevsky, determined that people gave primarily for a selfish reason: feel- good motivation. Research showed that people are more likely to give when they think it will put smiles on the faces of those who are suffering. The hope, or similar feel-good sensations, are driven by the brain’s reward systems. Ultimately, a donation, regardless of the giver’s intention, is still valuable to its recipients.
At this point, I have given you two examples of celebrities’ form of philanthropy, but the average person is unable to grant an aid agency millions of dollars at will. This will prove to create a challenge for the everyday person in terms of their ability to donate, however, this obstacle does not relinquish the moral responsibility that we have to help our fellow man. In Singer’s work, if it is in your power to prevent another person’s suffering, then you should do that, granted that you do not give up “anything nearly as important” (672). I am almost certain that Singer meant your health, your welfare, the health and welfare of your family. However, this is a large oversight in Singer’s argument and many people have noticed this loophole and ran with it. Necessity is relative and varies from person, and while everyone can agree that food, shelter, and clean water are necessities, in many places, especially this country, people buy luxury items and deem them an absolute necessity. The excess money is selfishly spent on ourselves while people in other places knowingly suffer.
The simplest, most logical, solution that I can come up with is somewhat similar to a tax bracketing situation. Your wealth, beyond a certain threshold, is subject to become a charitable donation to an aid agency. As the rightful owner of the funds, you would be allowed to choose which charity you would like to support and saving the money is not an option. You will still be allowed to live fairly comfortably, but any surplus of money that you inherit will be commandeered by the government in order to serve those in need. This system would require everyone to contribute including those who are impoverished. I am including those below the threshold of poverty for two reasons. The first is because no one is exempt from filing taxes, hence, they will also not be exempt from the donation bracket. This also prevents people from feeling as though they are contributing people who are not even attempting to help themselves. If all persons are contributing, then all persons are working together to find a solution as a community of equals. Secondly, I understand that many people are afraid to ask for help. Although they are in dire need of charity, they do not wish to be deemed a helpless, charity case. Even if they can only contribute a small amount, it is comforting to know that they are making an honest attempt to better their situation.