The Singer Solution to Global Poverty

[TAFJonathan]

http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/singermag.html

What do you think? It's hard to argue with him.

Sins of omission...

 

[Danoff]

What do you think? It's hard to argue with him.

I think it's rather easy to argue with him. You just have to be aware that at any moment you can use your own capabilities to help others or yourself if you choose - and accept that. You could spend your entire life helping those in need, never once helping yourself. You could spend your entire life refusing to help those in need (minus the forced charity that is taken from you in the form of taxes). Or you could strike a balance.

However, it is not the case that if I refuse to help, I am responsible for the outcome. If that were true, all of the worlds problems would be everyone's fault.

 

[Danoff]

Looking farther down the track, he sees the small figure of a child very likely to be killed by the runaway train. He can't stop the train and the child is too far away to warn of the danger, but he can throw a switch that will divert the train down the siding where his Bugatti is parked. Then nobody will be killed -- but the train will destroy his Bugatti. Thinking of his joy in owning the car and the financial security it represents, Bob decides not to throw the switch. The child is killed. For many years to come, Bob enjoys owning his Bugatti and the financial security it represents.

So does this mean that bob killed the child? He could have saved the child's life and chose not to. No, obviously bob did not kill the child. Bob did not put the child in harm's way. The child managed to get himself in harm's way and bob chose not to sacrifice to fix the child's problem.

Look at it this way. You can save a life right now... just send some of your money to some charity that feeds people in africa and you'll save a life. But wait, after you've sent that money, you still have some money left - money that could be used to save another life. If you don't send ALL of your money, you're not saving as many lives as you COULD. That means that the ones that you don't save are murdered by YOU. But wait, when you run out of money you could actually go over to Africa and help out by growing crops or administering aid. If you don't do it, more people would probably... according to singer that means your MURDERING those people. So you have to go... that is if you don't want to be a murderer. You also have to learn how to be a doctor, by not learning how to be a doctor and saving lives you're effectively killing the people that you don't save. You don't want to be a murderer do you?

It's totally preposterous. To think that you're responsible for the deaths of the people you choose not to save is beyond rediculous. Right now there is a child who is starving that I could probably save with my bank account or refrigerator. I'm choosing not to save this child that I know very well is out there starving. I didn't put the child in that position. I didn't cause that child to have less food. I didn't put the child next to a desert where there is no food. I didn't run off all of the business that could supply that child with food. I didn't have anything to do with the child - so how can I be the cause of the child's death? If you think I am, then so are you and so is everyone and you have to move to africa and become a doctor.

Like I said, it's quite easy to argue with him - because he makes no sense.

 

[a6m5]

I'm sorry, I didn't read the whole thing, but I get the idea. I've looked around and often thought the same thing. The food is so unbelievably cheap here in the U.S., that overweightness is an serious issue. I remember while growing up in Japan, I was told to completely finish my meal, like million times. Couple years ago, here in the States, I saw an ad or article(can't remember) that said, if you leave some of your food on the plate at the end of the meal, they add up and you can lose weight. I don't know about you, but coming from different culture, it sounded really crazy. You waste perfectly good food, so you can be healthier? It's even crazier that it makes sense.

Anyway, I often think about how there's too much food in richer countries, while kids in Africa actually dies from starvation. Unfortunately, it's not going to change until our governments change their priorities and I don't see it happening anytime soon. We, as in us and our governments are just too selfish to do something about it, IMO.

P.S. I've wanted to see that movie "Central Station" they mention in the article. I think, I'll rent it now.

 

[Danoff]

Anyway, I often think about how there's too much food in richer countries, while kids in Africa actually dies from starvation. Unfortunately, it's not going to change until our governments change their priorities

What makes it your problem?

Didn't you men nothing is going to change until their governments change their priorities?

 

[a6m5]

What makes it your problem?

I look at them as fellow men. I don't like seeing them suffer. Very natural reaction, I think.

Didn't you men nothing is going to change until their governments change their priorities?

That's true. I think the quickest way to solve many problems in Africa is to start with their leadership.

 

[Danoff]

I look at them as fellow men. I don't like seeing them suffer. Very natural reaction, I think.

That's very big of you. Feel free to dig into your wallet and hand over as much money as you want. Just remember that you probably could have given more and that makes you a murderer (according to singer).

But as soon as you advocate having my government do something about it, you're advocating using my money without my permission to spend on your own personal charity because you don't like seeing them suffer. How about you let me decide that for myself? Keep the government out of charity and where it belongs.

 

[Duke]

Is this guy for real?

So how does my philosophy break down in dollars and cents? An American household with an income of $50,000 spends around $30,000 annually on necessities, according to the Conference Board, a nonprofit economic research organization. Therefore, for a household bringing in $50,000 a year, donations to help the world's poor should be as close as possible to $20,000. The $30,000 required for necessities holds for higher incomes as well. So a household making $100,000 could cut a yearly check for $70,000. Again, the formula is simple: whatever money you're spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away.

I note that despite the fact he is Australian that he only mentions that Americans should be giving away their money.

He says everything we make over $30,000 (what's supposedly required for whatever he deems "necessities") should be given away to charity. I also note that it says in the intro that he gives away 20% of his income himself.

That means he better not make a penny more than $37,500 a year, or else he's a big fat hypocrite. Care to take bets on his yearly income?

I refuse to be guilted into responsibility for every other person on this planet. Not happening, and I'm not even sorry to say it.

 

[a6m5]

That's very big of you. Feel free to dig into your wallet and hand over as much money as you want. Just remember that you probably could have given more and that makes you a murderer (according to singer).

But as soon as you advocate having my government do something about it, you're advocating using my money without my permission to spend on your own personal charity because you don't like seeing them suffer. How about you let me decide that for myself? Keep the government out of charity and where it belongs.

I do see what you're saying. I also agree that if you don't want your tax money spent on rebuilding Africa, you'd feel cheated. But if that's what the majority in your country decides, what can you do? I don't like taxes, but I deal with it. It's not like they'll take your firstborn. If you don't like how your country is ripping you off, and are not happy with what they provide, maybe it's time you move on to a new country. Unfortunately for you, majority rules(most of the time ).

 

[Danoff]

I do see what you're saying. I also agree that if you don't want your tax money spent on rebuilding Africa, you'd feel cheated. But if that's what the majority in your country decides, what can you do? I don't like taxes, but I deal with it. It's not like they'll take your firstborn. If you don't like how your country is ripping you off, and are not happy with what they provide, maybe it's time you move on to a new country. Unfortunately for you, majority rules(most of the time ).

That was fast. Usually it takes a little longer for folks who are advocating forced "charity" to fall back on the "What can we do, it's the will of the people" argument.

Fortunately that argument doesn't hold water. The will of the majority should not be used to violate the rights of the minority. That includes property rights. That's why we have a bill of rights in America. That's why we have a limited government - because majority rule is unacceptible in many aspects. The government is the people, and the people must be limited in their power over each other or they will infringe the rights of others if given a chance.

So again, I say that the proper and right thing is for government to remove itself from the charity business and leave it to private organizations and private donations - where we can each contribute as much or as little as we feel we should - and where we can each decide what cause to contribute to.

 

[a6m5]

That was fast. Usually it takes a little longer for folks who are advocating forced "charity" to fall back on the "What can we do, it's the will of the people" argument.

Fortunately that argument doesn't hold water. The will of the majority should not be used to violate the rights of the minority. That includes property rights. That's why we have a bill of rights in America. That's why we have a limited government - because majority rule is unacceptible in many aspects. The government is the people, and the people must be limited in their power over each other or they will infringe the rights of others if given a chance.

So again, I say that the proper and right thing is for government to remove itself from the charity business and leave it to private organizations and private donations - where we can each contribute as much or as little as we feel we should - and where we can each decide what cause to contribute to.

Yeah, I'm not a smart person like you. You read me like a book!

Our concept of government is so far off from one another, I really can't even begin to argue with you(refer to Libertarian thread). You think tax is "rights" issue, where I see tax as obligation.

As I've said in the "America" thread, I don't believe the private charities and donations would work. There simply aren't going to be enough donation to get things done that way IMO. You want to pay tax, only on things you, your family uses, nothing else. I don't believe in overtaxing, but at the same time, I think we are required to fund the causes of our government sometimes. I know I'm going to sound like a communist, but I think I'm bit more of a team player. I'm mostly happy with how things are with our government. Sure, everybody has complaints on certain issues, but in the end, we are fed (too)well, we buy whatever we want, etc., etc. If you are not happy to be living in the USA, I think you're out of luck! I don't know of many country that can provide its' citizens with the amount of freedom, luxury, riches, protection, etc. that USA can.

Telling by your post, you think I'm some kind of sheep, and that's OK. I do respect your view, and while the "majority" will probably not agree with your view on taxes, good luck with your cause.

 

[Joey D]

I don't really bother with these kinds of charities, there are many problems that affect the whole world more then starvation. I focus my giving to cancer research because it has affected me through my family. And I believe in giving time over money, because with time I can see results where as with money I can't.

I think the guy is off his rocker to tell you the truth. I didn't read the entire thing but I shouldn't have to give my money to something I don't seem fit. Also I shouldn't have to give because I'm an American. Is it my problem that I make a good living and I'm wealthy? Well I guess it would be but its not something I complain about. I worked hard and so did my parents for money. I will give it where I deem fit.

 

[a6m5]

I don't really bother with these kinds of charities, there are many problems that affect the whole world more then starvation. I focus my giving to cancer research because it has affected me through my family. And I believe in giving time over money, because with time I can see results where as with money I can't.

I think the guy is off his rocker to tell you the truth. I didn't read the entire thing but I shouldn't have to give my money to something I don't seem fit. Also I shouldn't have to give because I'm an American. Is it my problem that I make a good living and I'm wealthy? Well I guess it would be but its not something I complain about. I worked hard and so did my parents for money. I will give it where I deem fit.

I agree with you there. I've also heard stories about how charities can rip you off. Say you donate some money for food to give. Crooks will take that money to their partner, who has inventory of expired food that has no value in the U.S.(ie just about free), pay ridiculous amount of money for it, then sends the food to where it needs to go. Obviously, most of the charities doesn't operate this way, but it is one of the ways they can rip you off.

Even if the quality food makes it to Africa, their "warlords" are known for hijacking the donation, keeping it for themselves. 👎

 

[ledhed]

singer solution = let the Americans pay for it .

 

[Danoff]

As I've said in the "America" thread, I don't believe the private charities and donations would work.

...and as I said in the "America" thread, that's the only right way for it to work. Anything else is immoral.

You want to pay tax, only on things you, your family uses, nothing else.

No. I want to pay tax only on things that government must do.

I know I'm going to sound like a communist, but I think I'm bit more of a team player.

You're just willing to let your money be spent the way it is and don't care if other people aren't.

If you are not happy to be living in the USA, I think you're out of luck! I don't know of many country that can provide its' citizens with the amount of freedom, luxury, riches, protection, etc. that USA can.

That doesn't mean it has to get worse does it?

singer solution = let the Americans pay for it .

Yes. Duke has an excellent point about Singer with his 20% not donating as much as he says other people should donate. Singer would probably say that he's using the rest of the money to "get the word out". But what word is he getting out? That unless you try with every second of your life to save as many lives as you can through self sacrifice - you're guilty of the murder of those lives you didn't save. It's absurd.

 

[Flame-returns]

We should not send food to Africa.

African farmers spend months cultivating their fields, they are about to sell it at a market, BAM we dump heaps of free food on the villiage, the farmer loses his income, and Africa become even more dependent on us.

We should support the farmers, making Africa less independent and more prosperous, rather than damping our excess on Africa and putting the farmer out of business.

"Feeding the world" will ruin it, this vicious cycle is caused by ignorance. Feeding the family will doom them, better to help the farmer and the economy.

 

[blargonator]

it is not possible to feed everyone in the whole world, it sounds stupid but there is not enough fertile land to support everyone 8- \ it sucks.

i help people when i see fit, i donate if i feel like it but i won't donate because someone tells me to. I don't know about you guys but im not about to pack up and go to south america to help the children but if I see someone on the side of the road with their hazards on, im going to pull over and help them, wether that means taking money out of my own pocket to pay for a plastic gas tank and some gas, i will help <8- ) we are generally wasteful though and things could easily change but that is another topic.

if singer wants to help as many people as possible he would stop living in a home and live on the streets, he could easily live off the land by taking baths in rivers (not really sanitary or safe in most rivers) and eating simple greenery found around his area. hell, he could live in a shanty if he needed some form of comfort.

 

[Flame-returns]

MYTH!!!!!!

Infact the world has more than enough fertile land to feed itslef, its just that we (the west) are too greedy. When we do decide to help we simply dump our excess on the fragile African economy. We need to help support farmers in poorer countries to meet the demand.

Only then will the Africa be fed.

 

[Danoff]

We need to help support farmers in poorer countries to meet the demand.

Only then will the Africa be fed.

MYTH!!!!

Africa can be fed if Africa gets its act together. Africa does not require our help to solve its problems.

It is a myth that there is not enough land to feed everyone on the planet. Africa (the continent) is capable all by itself of feeding the africans on that continent. They do not require food from elsewhere to solve their problems. American consumption is not robbing the Africans of food. Our government pays our farmers to produce less food than they could so that the prices at our grocery stores will go up.... that's how much food we produce all by ourselves on the little bit of land that America has.

 

[Flame-returns]

As I said, we should not dump food on Africa

African farmers spend months cultivating their fields, they are about to sell it at a market, BAM we dump heaps of free food on the villiage, the farmer loses his income, and Africa become even more dependent on us.

We should support the farmers, making Africa less independent and more prosperous, rather than damping our excess on Africa and putting the farmer out of business.

However farmers in Africa do need support in terms of equipment, distribution etc. I would rather see my money go to that cause than what we are doing at the moment which is weakening the African economy...

Bob Geldoff is a fool, see my post linking him to the London Bombings.