Thousands of people all over the world are dying every year because of poverty related illness and malnourishment, and financially stable American consumers are to blame. This is the argument presented by Peter Singer in his essay The Singer Solution to World Poverty. Peter supports this claim by saying Americans should redirect all income not spent on necessities to organizations who help overseas needy people because it's our moral responsibility. Singer's argument is unrealistic and grossly oversimplified. Even if every American donated as much money as they could possibly spare it would just create a new set of problems. Singer's argument places blame on innocent American consumers, proposes an unrealistic solution and overlooks the real problem.
Singer's argument places the blame for a world of poverty related problems squarely on the shoulders of every American family. Americans spend nearly one-third of its income on unnecessary things. Singer thinks that spending money on these things while knowing that the money could be used to save lives is no better, morally, than getting paid for killing children. The truth is that the average American family is just doing a perfectly good job at living in a capitalistic society. Why are we Americans to blame for living the way we've been taught to our whole lives? What about the governments of the countries where these poor children live? What about the irresponsible parents of these children? Americans work for their money, pay high taxes for the right to live in this country, and are entitled to do whatever they please with their money. Our economy is dependent on Americans spending their surplus money, not giving it away.
Singer's argument proposes that all Americans give away as much money as they can possibly spare, and then some. Obviously if everyone in America donated as much money as they possibly could, it would raise a huge amount of money and probably save thousands of lives.
