Response to Singer’s Solution Have you ever thought that you are happier than many children in the world? On the other hand, they do not have enough good conditions to live and develop themselves, including poverty. How will they struggle for their lives with their small hands? They probably need our help to rescue them out of danger. “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, which is written by Peter Singer, is a solution to save children’s lives. Singer persuades the reader to participate in helping children who lack food, get many diseases, and do not have good living conditions.
His argument is that all of us should contribute to saving the children’s lives According to “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, this solution totally has the ability to be done by our help; however, I am not completely persuaded that I will help children by following Single’s solution. Before giving his solution, Peter Singer begins with two situations. First, there is Dora’s situation, which is in “Central Station”, a Brazilian film. One of the main characters is a woman named Dora. She is a retired teacher.
She has a chance to receive one thousand dollars with a requirement that she has to convince a homeless boy who will be adopted by rich strangers. In fact, these rich people will sell his organs. However, after struggling with her conscience, Dora decides to rescue the little boy. Sadly, the second situation which belongs to the book named “Living High and Letting Die” of Peter Unger is Bob’s situation, which has a different result than Dora’s. In order to protect his car, Bob decides not to use his car to prevent the death of the child who is killed by the runaway train on the railways although he can save this child at hat moment.
The similarity in the ethical dilemma which Dora and Bob have to face is that all of them have to struggle with their thoughts before they come to their decisions. However, every single person has his or her own choice. Consequently, this creates the difference between Dora and Bob. After thinking again because of a guilty conscience, related to the aspects of morality, Dora decides to rescue the child. In contrast, Bob decides to protect his car instead of the child. Immediately, we will suppose that Bob is so heartless.
As a reader, I wonder if it will be fair to Bob if we decide which one is right, and which one is wrong. In my opinion, it depends on the situation that we face. For helping children, this issue is always a one of the hard issues that need to be solved. After giving two situations, Singer argues his solution by persuading us that every individual should give two hundred dollars to an organization to save children’s lives. He solves the problem that we should spend money to save lives of children instead of going to the restaurants, repairing the houses, buying clothing, new cars, or having vacations.
These things make me wonder whether I am wrong when I spend money on a good meal in the restaurant. Why do many people have to work hard to earn money? Because they have to spend many things for their lives. Because nothing is free, everybody has to expend many things for their lives. They need to take care of their families, pay their children’s tuition, pay their monthly bills, and improve their lives. Besides, taking a vacation is absolutely reasonable to people who need relaxation. The thing that they do not spend two hundred dollars to organizations doesn’t mean they have heartlessness.
In many cases, they do not have enough abilities to send that amount of money to the poor children. Thave the similar thinking with Singer about helping children’s lives, but his argument is too strong for me to agree with all of his views. I have thought that I am asked to donate money. I also think that not only I but also some readers maybe have the same feeling like me that I am censured; for example, he says that if I think Bob is wrong because of not saving the life of the child, I am also not right if I do not donate money to one organization (par. 10).
In my opinion, if he reduces his strong emotion a little, his argument will be more convincing; as a result, there are many people will be willing to share their help with all their hearts. In fact, I believe that we have many ways to save the lives of children, not only giving money since money does not exist forever. The best moral value of the life is the way people treat other people by their loyal hearts; that is the real meaning. In particular, for example, when I was in school, there were many activities which were organized to help poor students such as donating used books, used clothing, pens, pencils, notebooks, or money.
Nevertheless, they did not require how much I had to give because those donations depended on how much I had and would like to share. For this reason, in my own thinking, I was luckier than other people, so I could volunteer to do that, and I had better do that. In conclusion, from two different situations, especially Bob’s situation, Singer uses his strong emotion to sympathize with children, particularly those are killed. He convinces people to donate money to an organization in order to save children’s lives.
I think Singer does pretty well in persuading the reader by his argument. He tries to persuade everybody to follow his situation to save the children’s lives. It is not wrong. However, is it fair to everybody who is requested to do that by his own thinking? Although I do not strongly agree with him, I am sure he is a good guy, and I absolutely admire his goodness. I suggest that if we could share our help with the poor children, we should help them as much as we can and treat them well like our family members because children are worthy to receive the best things.