The Singer Solution to World Poverty: a Critical Analysis

Naverson’s Distinction: Charity and Justice as Matters of Moral Choice

After reading ‘Feeding the Hungry’ and ‘The Singer Solution to World Poverty,’ the question that is asked is, do we as people always do good, or do we limit our actions to the boundaries of causality? Singer believes we should always help those less fortunate, and Naverson differentiates charity and justice, where charity is optional, and justice is forced. Both Naverson and Singer have opposing views, as one is a libertarian and the other utilitarian.

Narveson believes that it is morally optional to feed the hungry, whereas Singer believes that the only ethical thing to do is to end world hunger and give up everyday luxuries.

Singer’s proposition is unrealistic and too demanding on Americans. I concur with Naverson’s idea that any help we give is entirely optional and not an obligation because we should not be obligated to do something that we do not find just. In other words, since we did cause those to suffer, we are not obligated to relieve them of their suffering; retribution towards these people should be based on responsibility. In Naverson’s essay ‘Feeding the Hungry,’ he makes a difference between justice and charity. He defines justice as the demands that are enforceable, but charity is the desire to help those who need it. It is morally acceptable to force someone to act just, but it is not morally permissible to force someone to act charitably. If you force charity, it really does not come from the heart. Naverson does not deny that we should not be charitable, but he believes that we do not have a moral obligation to act charitably. When it comes to feeding the hungry, Iverson believes that the choice is up to us.

Moral Obligations in the Face of Poverty: Contrasting Naverson’s Indifference with Singer’s Call for Altruism

Whether we do so or not has no moral reflection on who we are. Taking care of the poor is not our responsibility; our only responsibility is to our family. Naverson cites Garret Hardin’s ‘Don’t Feed the Hungry.’ If we do feed the hungry and save the starving, then there will be even more people starving. Eventually, there will be too many people starving that we will not be able to feed them, which will cause misery. In the essay ‘The Singer Solution to World Poverty,’ Singer addresses the issue of world poverty. He goes into more detail by claiming that the issue would be resolved if Americans would give most of their income to those in need. Singer’s belief is that if one withholds most of their income, then there is a child who will starve to death. Unlike Naverson, Singer believes that it is our obligation to give to charity in order to increase utility. Therefore, we should not be living a luxurious life if there are people less fortunate than us. It is our moral obligation to help those less fortunate instead of becoming richer and saving money.

Singer gives an example where an individual had the opportunity to do the morally right thing but instead chose money and an object over a child’s life. In this example, Singer talks about an older gentleman named Bob. Bob worked for his whole life, saving money to buy a Bugatti. One day, Bob parks his car on a set of train tracks for a walk. As he is walking, Bob sees there is a train coming. Further ahead, there is a child playing on the tracks. Now Bob can either save the child or his Bugatti. In the end, Bob decides to save his Bugatti. According to Singer, what Bob did was morally wrong. Even though Bob did not know the child, he should have chosen a life over an object. Singer argues that because Bob had the opportunity to stop something bad from happening, he should have chosen the child over a material object.

Charity vs. Obligation: Navigating the Morality of Giving with Narveson’s Perspective

Narveson, on the other hand, argued that what Bob did was morally right. He states that because Bob did not know the child, he had no moral obligation to help the child. He makes the point that because Bob worked his whole life to save up for the Bugatti, he did not owe the stranger any obligation to save his life. Narveson is not saying that he should not have helped the child; he just did not have an obligation to do so. Personally, I agree more with Jan Naverson than Peter Singer. In ‘Feeding the Hungry,’ Naverson goes into detail, saying that feeding the hungry is an act of charity and not an act of justice. He later goes on to say that it is morally optional.

I do agree that giving to those less fortunate should be voluntary. If I choose to give to charity, it is up to me how much I give. I do not agree that a person be marked as a morally bad person for not giving to charity. The only time we should be charitable is when we are in a position to give to those who are less fortunate. I also agree with Narveson that you cannot impose a duty of justice to feed the hungry. If we are not responsible for their suffering, then we do not need to provide for them. But we are obligated to make an effort. Naverson states, ‘One of the good things we can do in life is to make an effort to care about people whom we don’t ordinarily care or think’ (Shaffer-Landau 246).

Challenging the Singer Solution to World Poverty: Summary and Critique of an Idealistic Approach

Our duty to respect others does not mean that there is an obligation to sacrifice for others. At the end of the day, we as people should help the poor out of compassion and not an obligation. There have always been people who are hungry, and there will always be people who are hungry. Giving money to those who are less fortunate is just a short-term solution. I disagree with Peter Singer because his solution is an unrealistic and unattainable goal. Singer states that everyone should donate all the money that is needed for necessities in order to help those who are suffering. Also, if everyone stopped spending money on non-necessities, then all the businesses dealing with non-necessities would go bankrupt because no one is spending money on ‘luxurious things.’

Almost everyone would be unemployed. Therefore, all the countries we would be aiding would be poor because we would no longer be able to help them. Both Jan Naverson and Peter Singer have opposing views in regard to feeding hunger. I personally agree with Naverson’s beliefs that giving to those who are less fortunate is morally optional. If I do give to charity, it is up to me to whom and how much I give. Although a donation of excess wealth is morally the right thing to do, the solution of giving up most of one’s income has many flaws.

References:

1. Singer, P. (1999). The Singer Solution to World Poverty. The New York Times Magazine.

Did you like this example?

317

13