Around the world, millions of men, women and children live under the poverty line. Every day, parents struggle to feed their sons and daughters and to provide them with a safe lifestyle. Every night, these very children go to bed hungry, not properly educated, and more prone to deadly diseases. On the other hand, in rich and developed countries, wealthy families spend hundreds of dollars every week on items that they do not need but instead desire, items they and their kids could live without. As a solution to this grave issue, professor Peter Singer proposes in his New York Times essay that all of people’s money which is not being used to meet the basic demands of human life should be given away to charities such as UNICEF, in order to provide a healthier lifestyle to children and adults in need. Although it may seem purely beneficial at first glance, it poses certain moral issues that make this idea inconceivable in the long run.
Promoting the idea of an equal sharing of the world’s resources and money could be very profitable and helpful to both the sending and receiving ends of the system. In our money-driven society, the gap between the rich and poor is becoming increasingly marked. People around the world now possess billions of dollars worth of property and cash, whereas others live on less than a dollar a day. This creates a strong separation of populations and a growing division between rich, developed countries and their poorer, emerging counterparts. Creating a system linking these two different worlds through solidarity and charity would reinforce the sense of community and belonging that this earth lacks. In doing so, political tensions between nations or within them may be relieved, and it would be possible to focus on other issues concerning the Earth’s future, such as climate change or the evolution of renewable energies. Moreover, the injection of money and the ability of a people to live in healthier conditions would eventually lead to the progression of these emerging or underdeveloped regions. Studies have shown that in many poor countries, education rates are low, mostly due to the need for children to start working earlier in order to provide for their families. Through the financing of these families’ basic human needs, the education levels would inevitably rise, therefore creating an environment prone to the development of many countries. Finally, getting equal access to necessities such as food or healthcare to people around the world would also help it toward a more sustainable future: the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals clearly focus on a safe and healthy future for the world’s population, such as access to food, water, and education for example, which could be achieved through such a system.
Even so, Singer’s theory presents a large number of cons, as it does not consider the many factors that would have to come into play to ensure the creation of this system. To those on the receiving end, this help would obviously be valued for a period of time. However, as Singer’s theory implies this donation will be continuous, it will not benefit those in need in the long run. Giving them resources instead of providing them with the ability to create those resources themselves is not healthy nor is it helpful. A strong dependence would be born, and if anything were to happen to the source of their revenue, the charity organizations and those benefiting from them would be left in an even worse condition that they began the program in. Moreover, a sense of superiority would be reinforced on the donating side. As those being told to give away their money would realise they are the reason for many’s access to basic resources such as water, they would inevitably start thinking that they are somehow superior to those in need. In addition, all incentive to work in rich, developed countries and others would be lost: employees work with the knowledge that they will be receiving a reward for this time and effort. If this reward is taken away from them and instead given to charities and organizations such as UNICEF, there is no concrete reason for any worker to pursue his or her effort. Although this may seem selfish, it is the nature of the human being: it will strive to provide for himself and his family, but not for a stranger’s. Furthermore, the risk of persons refusing to give up their money is very probable. After all, there is no way to guarantee millions of people would all agree to participate in this project. How would the charities ensure that each person is participating equally? Singer’s theory does not address this, and instead relies too much on trust and generosity. Finally, by forcing populations to donate their “excess” revenue, this theory defies the concept of charity. Helping provide resources for a human in need should be a two-way street in which both parties are willing to participate, rather than an obligation. Imposing this creates resentment among the unwilling participants, which sets up for an even more toxic and selfish society than Singer claims we are a part of today.
Lastly, the difference between necessity and luxury is a very thin one with many nuances. What would be considered an unnecessary item? What are these “basic requirements of life” that Singer addresses? We can take the example of showering: to many, this may be considered a necessity, but is it truly? One needs not shower to survive, and thousands do not have access to the resources necessary to complete this task. Lack of showering is not a direct cause of death, although an infection or bacteria might be. In this sense, it may not be considered absolutely necessary, but rather, a luxury. On the other hand, hygiene is an undeniable part of healthcare, and lack of access to such a resource has many negative consequences, such as the contraction of diseases. Around the world, millions do not have the possibility of washing themselves. It is because of such innovations, technologies, and evolving ideas that the line becomes very nuanced. What was once considered a luxury can now have become a necessity, and vice versa. The growth of industries creates an ever changing sense of need and want. This difference can also vary depending on one’s culture, religion, or country. Because of the difference in living costs in each country, it would be nearly impossible to determine who would have to donate what amount of money. A person considered very wealthy in a relatively poor country, for example, may be considered average or under the average in the United States. Having to adapt this system to each country and change it regularly to fit its economic growth would be time and money consuming. This could eventually become a waste of resources. Generally speaking, the money and time used to develop this system would defy its very purpose: to donate any “unnecessary wealth” to charities around the world.
In conclusion, Singer’s system may seem beneficial on the surface, but its cons outweigh the benefits. The theory relies too strongly on trusting its participants and not enough on logic and concrete facts, which will prove problematic in the long run. Finally, it raises many moral questions and issues: what is considered a necessity, and why? This line is very thin and hard to determine. More importantly, it is wrong to take away an individual’s earnings for which he or she has worked. Although these may seem like details, they are the foundation for Singer’s theory, and what eventually make it crumble.