Peter Singer is a philosopher who believes that people should only spend money on absolute necessities and donate the rest. In English class, we had to write a paper discussing both the positive and negative sides of this idea. Here is the result.
In general, Peter Singer’s idea of sending luxury money to those in need could be a good idea. Many of the people who live in poverty die of easily cured, and not very expensive to cure, diseases. Donated comfort money could give people like this a chance to live and have better hopes for the future. In his article, Singer states that only two hundred dollars can save a child’s life. If people were required to donate money, many others would be saved. Combined with this is the idea of human greed gradually diminishing. Singer says that instead of spending money on unnecessary items, we should donate it. “[…] a one thousand dollar suit could save five children’s lives,” he adds as reasoning. If people were to live off as much money as they need, and not more, they would be less likely to take things for granted and would spend wisely. Ideally, Singer’s suggestion could save many and lead the more prosperous people into living a morally acceptable life.
Realistically, however, the world is not ideal. Singer says that only thirty thousand dollars a year is necessary for living. Most people, because of their greed, would not allow that to happen. Part of it may be based on an ‘I earned it myself’ idea that prevents people from donating the money they made. Singer himself makes a $100,000 salary, not including the money from the books he writes or the money he receives from his father’s trust fund. From that $100,000, Singer only donates one-fifth of the money. When he himself cannot follow his own rules, how does he expect others to do so? This points out the unrealistic measures he sets. There is also the gray area between necessity and luxury. Who is to decide what is needed and what is unessential? The argument can also extend to education. Do people absolutely need to attend college--or is it a luxury? If it is classified as a luxury by Singer’s standards because it is not absolutely essential for life, the world would end up with less educated people and thus change the way the world is run altogether. The same thing could happen if people began to stop buying luxury items. Vacations and tourism, for example, are how some countries earn the money they need. If that was taken away, new methods of earning money would be needed so the country could run efficiently. On a smaller scale, companies need consumers to buy their products so they pay the people that work for them and earn money themselves. Otherwise, the company may stop making the money it needs and start a domino effect. People who were working in the company will lose their jobs and the number of people who need money will increase. What was supposed to be helpful could actually end up doing more harm than good. In addition to this, there are the arts. Though some people may consider them a waste, they partially define every section of the world. Without them, everyone loses part of their culture and what identifies them as a whole. Most of the money donated to organizations such as UNICEF doesn’t always make it to the people that need it. If, out of all the money sent, only part of it is used efficiently, isn’t the other part wasted in the same way it would be if spent on a luxury item?
Though Singer’s ideas could work in a utopian world, realistically, it could bring chaos among the people and actually end up causing more harm than good.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
