Peter Singer and his “solution” to end world poverty university essay help Business homework help

Although being “able but unwilling to donate to overseas aid” may been seen as selfish, it is in no way immoral, as Peter Singer would like to suggest. People should not have to bear the responsibility of having to care for every other human. Although people grow up with different opportunities, the one thing that everyone has in common is potential. Whether someone lived in a poor family or a rich family, there is the possibility of having a successful life if effort is put into their schoolwork/jobs.

Someone from a poor family might have to work harder than someone from an affluent family because they could have problems finding the money to go to college, but this is why there are scholarships. Someone who works hard, goes to school, gets good grades, and becomes very wealthy shouldn’t have to give up the majority of their money. People work hard for their money and should do what they want with it. If money that is normally spent on luxuries went to aid towards impoverished countries, the work ethic of many would people would drastically decline.

A popular ideal of life is to make a lot of money. Most people were brought up at an early age, to be conditioned based on reward and punishment. Doctors and scientists both have considerable amounts of “luxury” money. They went to school for a long time so that they could make a lot of money. That was their incentive. And without incentives, there would be a lack of scientific discoveries, regarding medicine and other useful things. What would be considered a “luxury” to one person, might be considered a necessity to someone else.

Peter Singer believes that “whatever money [is spent] on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away. ” The world, however, is not that black and white. For example, a college student would probably consider a laptop as a necessity because they would access to something portable in which they could write/turn in their essays or conduct their research. A farmer, on the other hand, might consider a laptop to be a luxury because it doesn’t have much to do with his profession/every day lifestyle.

People should always have money saved up in case of stressful times. Nobody plans on being diagnosed with cancer, but it happens. In situations like this, treatment options, like radiation, can be very expensive. Treatment might take several weeks as well. People need to save up money in case emergencies. Sending a young adult to college might be seen as a luxury to one person while being a necessity for someone else. The definition of luxury and necessity change depending on a given situation.

Although sending money/supplies to overseas nations would help alleviate poverty, it would only do so in regard to short term issues, as opposed to long term ones. In Africa, “aid-supported scholarships [helped send… girls to school,” which was great for a short amount of time. Even though the girls graduated, they still wouldn’t “be able to find a job in their own countries. ” They were educated but couldn’t do anything with their knowledge. In a way, the aid was a waste. Almost every stable/affluent country/nation have an “accountable government and an efficient civil service.

” These things alone “help meet social needs. Its people need jobs and the belief in their country’s future. ” Money alone cannot “achieve these goals. ” What is the exact definition of a luxury? A necessity? It’s different for everyone, but Peter Singer is trying to define these two ambiguous words. Work ethic would diminish and the quality of life would deplete due to lack of scientific advancement. There would also be no long term goals being met. Overall, donating most of your money to aid for impoverished countries would do more harm than good.