IndexIntroductionPeter Singer's Singer's Solution to World PovertyConclusionIntroductionThe problem of global poverty appears to be worsening with no clear end in sight. The rich are getting richer and those who need help are not getting enough support. It's clear that most people believe that everyone, no matter where they live and who they are, should not live in extreme poverty but they don't know how to help. A utilitarian philosopher, Peter Singer, proposed a generous but controversial solution to poverty. However, Singer's argument that we must give up our luxuries to help poor people around the world was criticized by Andrew Kuper who believed that this type of philanthropy hinders more effective long-term strategies and ultimately harms the poor. I will build on Kuper's argument and suggest that our moral obligation is not to provide financially for the poor but rather to use our voice to demand political change. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayPeter Singer's the Singer Solution to World PovertyIn an article published in the New York Times, Singer suggests that North Americans with disposable income should give away their excess wealth to needy children abroad rather than spending it on luxury goods for themselves. Singer discusses fictitious cases, one involving a lady named Dora who saves the life of a homeless child she gave to organ traffickers in exchange for money to buy a new TV and the second involving a man named Bob who let a child get hit by a train. instead of flipping a switch to make the train destroy his Bugatti instead. Through the analysis of these two cases, Singer suggests that we all face similar dilemmas and that it is our moral obligation to sacrifice our luxuries to save the lives of children. Although Kuper believes Singer's argument is deeply flawed, he, just like Singer, agrees that “the interests of all people (Singer would say animals) must count equally in moral deliberation, and that the position geography and citizenship make no intrinsic difference to the rights and obligations of such individuals” (Kuper, 2002b). Kuper suggests that giving to the poor is an easy way to ease our consciences, but would ultimately harm those in need because their problems are rooted in a complex interplay of political and economic relationships. He argues that most of the luxury goods Singer tells readers to stop buying are produced in developing countries, which would hurt their economies. To bring about real change, we must create and reform political institutions and economies through activities such as lobbying and tourism. It is important to note that Singer actually responded to Kuper's criticisms in his article "Poverty, Facts, and Political Philosophies." in which he argues that while powerful political figures can interfere with some of the money donated to charity, that doesn't mean it would have been better if the donation had never occurred. Singer explains how charities like Oxfam are aware of the corruption of political rulers and have adopted extensive procedures to overcome these barriers and withdraw from a country when necessary. He also says that these organizations help realize Kuper's ideas by providing better tools and equipment that allow people to participate in the global economy, but this is not always helpful to people,especially to those in rural areas who cannot transport goods to international markets. In response, Kuper emphasizes that no amount of money will solve the global poverty epidemic and that more needs to be done. He discusses how those living in rural areas excluded from the economy, as Singer mentioned, should be helped by providing transportation rather than looking for other solutions outside of trade. In his final rejoinder, Singer claims that Kuper's argument does not contradict his central claim that it is morally wrong not to sacrifice one's luxuries to help the extremely poor. He states that he would support those who follow Kuper's solution, however he believes that it is difficult to make changes to established political systems and that donating money in the meantime would not be harmful. While Singer raises some strong challenges to Kuper's argument, this does not mean his argument should be rejected or invalidated. I believe Kuper's thesis can be strengthened by providing more in-depth explanations of how poverty is the result of a lack of political rather than monetary support. It is clear that providing billions of dollars in aid to the world's poorest countries will not solve the poverty pandemic, this is evident from the amount of money that has been donated throughout history with no clear end to poverty yet in sight. Kuper argues that by providing charitable donations we are doing more harm than good, but instead of explaining how this happens, he goes off on a tangent about how money sent to prevent South Africa's AIDS epidemic from continuing is being ignored by the president's made-up views Mbeki that HIV does not cause AIDS. This argument has been heavily criticized by Singer who deems it irrelevant because some funds will still help those in need and charities have ways to provide the proper medications. I agree with Singer in the sense that even if all the money doesn't go to help those in need doesn't mean we shouldn't still give what we can, since there are no other ways to help. However, simply prolonging someone's life is not helping them. Let's think back to the two examples highlighted by Singer in The Singer Solution to World Poverty. The hypothetical case in which Bob allows a child to die rather than destroy his Bugatti does not have the ability to accurately portray the life of a needy child in a developing country because in this case we assume that the child Bob left behind dying would have led a life similar to that of an average North American. Singer's first case, involving a homeless child, offers a more accurate depiction of the future of those living in poor countries, but it does not address the topic. Even though Dora saves the homeless child from having his organs harvested, it isn't improving his quality of life. And if audiences saw Dora save the child only to then return him to a street corner where he continued to be homeless and without food, would viewers still be happy with Dora's actions? By providing clean drinking water to a small village in Africa or mosquito nets to children to avoid malaria, we are providing beneficiaries with tools to prolong their lives, but this will not lift them out of pre-existing poverty. There is no doubt that many charitable organizations including Oxfam work hard to assist those in need. However, they must operate within the regulations set by the government of the country they are servicing. While it is good to provide greater sanitation and health care to those who need it, the real help comes from funding from national governments and legislatures that lead to things like better transportation routes andeducation accessible to citizens. While Singer briefly mentions governments' obligation to increase their foreign aid, he fails to recognize that governments receiving aid must use it appropriately. In North America, political figures are under pressure to maintain and improve the lives of those who live in their country by developing strategies to aid social and economic growth while implementing social safety nets for those who need them. This includes welfare programs, unemployment insurance, universal healthcare, free education, homeless shelters and public transportation to ensure that residents have the tools to not only survive but to live meaningful and positive lives. Without such services, those who receive help from foreign aid and charitable organizations will not have the ability to support themselves and live the enriching lives we all deserve. While I believe Kuper is on the right path, I believe his approach lacks the accountability needed to make real change. To strengthen his case, I believe he must embrace, rather than refute, the public's desire to help the poor globally. Although Singer's attempt to eliminate poverty is extremely idealistic, he places the burden of responsibility on the reader, the general public. The large-scale solution proposed by Kuper will not be effective without clear obligations regarding individual morality. While it is clear that politicians are often the ones in a position of power and authority, they rely on others to keep them in this position. . In North America, in order to get elected, politicians must campaign with citizens and develop ideas that help improve citizens' lives. If people feel that an elected official is not keeping his promises or is not implementing harmful laws, the politician runs the risk of being kicked out of office. We often take an active role in deciding what governments do and in pressuring them to make decisions that help society. Take LGBTQ rights for example, if it weren't for the constant lobbying and protests in the United States, politicians who don't feel directly affected by such laws would likely hold off on legalizing gay marriage for another ten, twenty, even thirty minutes. years. However, in North America, politicians are considered public servants and it is not acceptable for those in power to put their personal needs before those of the general public. The kind of pressure exerted through lobbying and protests should be exerted on politicians around the world. Often people and governments deliver foreign aid to nations in need and expect those in power to distribute the money fairly and equitably to those who need it. However, politicians can often be corrupt and succumb to greed. Furthermore, in some places around the world, political leaders manipulate or even eliminate elections to stay in power. Of course, in these cases they aren't concerned with pleasing citizens to earn their vote, but that doesn't mean we stop holding them accountable. To truly solve poverty, we must address the deeply entrenched corruption of political structures that allow politicians to deny aid to those who need it. By raising awareness and demanding change, political figures can take this problem seriously and address it with more realistic and lasting solutions. Although it is difficult to evaluate the outcome of such large-scale lobbying, there is no reason why they should not work based on the success of previous small-scale attempts. Imposing.