A response to an essay "The Singer Solution to World Poverty"

Hello, I’m going to be discussing an essay that we received in English class today: “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, by Peter Singer. The name pretty much explains what it is about. The general idea is that we (“we” meaning people who are financially secure) can prevent poverty by only keeping enough money to pay for our basic necessities and giving all the rest to those who are not as fortunate. All in all, it’s quite interesting. (I’m trying to not give any opinions on it in this paragraph)
Here’s a link to it:
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/19990905.htm

Ok, now for those opinions!
My response:

First of all, what do you wish to hear? If you wish to hear me unanimously supporting Mr. Singer’s essay, I’m terribly sorry.
Like I said above, Peter Singer is saying that can prevent poverty by not spending money on “extras” and giving the rest to the poor. Of course his way of advising us…or should I say forcing it on to us…is more like “If you don’t give money to the poor, then you are a 3vi1e murderer who would like to watch children die on railroad tracks!!!” My imitation is a large exaggeration of course, but after reading this article, can anyone honestly say that they didn’t feel that my little exaggeration was at least a remote gist of what Mr. Singer is saying? Here’s one example of this implication, from this example I think it is pretty obvious that the article is at least half accusation-based:

“If the upshot of the American's failure to donate the money is that one more kid dies on the streets of a Brazilian city, then it is, in some sense, just as bad as selling the kid to the organ peddlers. But one doesn't need to embrace my utilitarian ethic to see that, at the very least, there is a troubling incongruity in being so quick to condemn Dora for taking the child to the organ peddlers while, at the same time, not regarding the American consumer's behavior as raising a serious moral issue. (Singer, 1)

This isn’t the only example (nor the first, I believe) of how Singer is accusing his readers of being equivalent to murderers. He does it again in several other places, with different examples. I think his position on the issue discussed would be much more agreeable if he wasn’t accusing all his readers of being cold. I mean seriously, how does Mr. Singer expect people to behave after hearing such accusations? Human nature says that people probably won’t cooperate. Mr. Singer might say something about how it’s human moral, not nature. But he just finished telling us that if we don’t donate everything that we don’t need, then we are not moral people. In any case, I don’t think an attitude of accusation works for a persuasive essay.

Another thing that I have noticed is that Mr. Singer makes points based on assumptions. For example, he talks about how Dora was not like Bob in that Bob did not, I quote, “mislead the child or initiate the chain of events imperiling him.” unlike Dora. HOWEVER, this itself is based off of an assumption back in the second paragraph:
“Her neighbor spoils the fun, however, by telling her that the boy was too old to be adopted —he will be killed and his organs sold for transplantation. Perhaps Dora knew this all along, but after her neighbor's plain speaking, she spends a troubled night. In the morning Dora resolves to take the boy back.” (Singer, 1)
I’ve never seen this movie so I don’t have much to go by besides this essay, but just going by this essay it doesn’t look to me like there is evidence of Dora’s knowledge of what was actually going on. So I don't think that slapping Dora with the "cruel person" verdict is the right thing to do in the first place.


Now as to his advice on giving all excess money to the poor, I would agree except for the “all” part. Yes, it is very good to give some money to the poor. However if he is going to tell people to give that much of their income, I hope that he is willing to do the same. I wonder what kind of computer he has anyway? That’s not my point in this paragraph however. This is: he is saying that the average person spends $30,000 a year on necessities. Basically he wants everyone, no matter what work ethic, to have the same amount of money. In other words, the same amount of stuff. But when you think about it, the money must come from somewhere. What if you are a company and the only way that you make money is if people buy your products? But oops! No one is buying because they spend all of it on the poor! Now your poor yourself since all the money that you would have made is going elsewhere…So, how does this stop poverty exactly?
Now there is one way that this could work…I believe it is called communism? And I think that we know that this looks good on paper and theory and all, but in practice it’s not so good.

Well, that concludes my discussion on this essay. You know, maybe I'm approaching it at the wrong angle. Maybe I should analize the contents of the essay more. But in this case, there were so many disctractions in the form of accusations and forced points that I felt that it detracted from the meaning of the essay, and thus my interpretation of it.