Emma Gregory 1-19-12 Nutrition 497C An Analysis of Singers Solution to Poverty

Singer makes a point that Ive thought often of, and then have chosen not to think about any longer. Emotionally, I think this article challenges our sense of our own moral compass and therefore our self-image in general. I felt defensive in a sheepish way, because as I looked around my materialistic dorm room I knew he was right to some extent. However, I think he only addressed this issue of poverty from a morality standpoint and not from the complicated multi-factorial one that global issues must be addressed from. Throwing money at the issue doesnt necessarily solve it, although money is necessary. And insulting people doesnt solve it either. That being said, here is my argument. Although I reluctantly saw his point, I also decided that philosophy does not have a place in addressing global issues. Additionally, while consumerism and materialism is appallingly excessive in America, the economical consequences of redirecting our income to charities would be extremely detrimental to our countrys fiscal infrastructure. Buying and selling is the cornerstone of a successful country, and in order to build a country, a jump-start investment is needed, not a general funding. I am reluctant to use the word solution to describe Singers proposal. His proposal is built on wishes, built on what naturally un-altruistic people should do. Solutions worth considering when addressing global concerns dont involve anything that must be prefaced with in an ideal world. Philosophy, morality and

ethics researchers are primarily theorists, and in theory, more things are worth considering. In America, even those who seem to be making an extraordinary amount of money in a global perspective dont feel extraordinarily rich. The Tax Policy center released a study in 2010 about wealth distribution in America. Those at the 35th percentile are only making a few thousand dollars more than those in the 30th. The same pattern is repeated until there is a sudden spike in the 95th percentile. Americans dont feel rich. As the article points out, families are trying to keep up with the Jonses (NYTimes). The competitive nature of the stubborn American culture makes even reconsidering our highly materialistic lives and making more donations to the charities a realistic goal. Realistic measures must be taken if progress is to be made, and Singers proposal is far from realistic. Now that Ive addressed the infeasible nature of Singers policy, the inappropriateness of it as an actual global solution, Im going to play Singers game, and address it as if it were feasible. One of Singers frequently used arguments in his article dealt with the global consequences of Americans outlandish consumerism along the lines of: buying a new car is indirectly taking a childs life. However, what are the consequences of not buying that car? Maybe an employees job, maybe no dinner for that employees weekend. Still, this doesnt compare to a childs life. Now consider, what if everyone stopped buying new cars and waited until the car absolutely broke down to buy a new one? What if no one was interested in collecting old, beautiful cars anymore? It is a basic economic principle that when demand goes down, so does supply, and therefore jobs (The Micro View). The car industry would be tanked, and more importantly the lives of those involved in the car industry

would be tanked as well. If Singers solution was to be taken seriously, more than just the car industry would shrivel, anyone involved in trading goods and services would be left in the dust, and thats just about everybody. Trading goods and services is the basis of an economy, and a functioning economy is what makes a country flourish. If we were to do what Singer proposed, we wouldnt even be sacrificing the integrity of our economy for the sake of another, we would be sacrificing it to physically fund another country. One of the charities listed by Singer was Unicef. Their mission is to do whatever it takes to end preventable childhood deaths in developing countries by giving children the essentials for a safe and healthy childhood, including health care, clean water, nutrition, education, protection, emergency relief and more (Unicef). Unicef is a wonderful organization that saves many lives, however it lacks sustainability. Through Unicef you can fund a country, but you cannot build one. Its very expensive to fund a country and less expensive to build one. Why crash a western economy to fund a country when you could not crash it and build a country for less? I am not suggesting that we eradicate Unicefs contribution to global health issues at all. In fact, I, like Singer, strongly suggest donating to the organization. However, the bulk of our financial investments in solving global poverty and hunger should be creating market places that facilitate growth so that when their economy becomes sustainable, they can be weaned off Unicefs aid. Farmers in rural areas typically have extremely poor access to market places, inhibiting them from effectively trading their goods and setting researched, appropriate prices (Nutr

497C, Slide 14, Class 3). Increasing cash flow is the key to making health care, education, and daily meals possible. Some of those who were contributing to the Haiti Relief effort stopped with the handouts and bailouts and instead illustrate this kind of investment in a country. Creating jobs was at the utmost importance so investing in entrepreneurs via microfinancing became the focus (World In Conversation). Of course, emergency relief and some general funding was needed, but now Haitians can get back on their feet and begin life again. This type of aid is less expensive, more practical, and far more empowering than aid that causes the underprivileged to be dependent on others. Generous and altruistic behavior from the well-off countries is encouraged, but one country should never bear the pressure that comes with sole responsibility for the livelihood of another. That kind of pressure is what eventually causes conflict, and the global issue of poverty and hunger to proliferate. Singers solution is based on an ideal world, and to seriously consider his proposal as a solution you must encounter the reality of the American culture and economy. His policy is rife with unintended consequences such as the sacrifice of the American economy for the sake of directly funding another country. Additionally, the charities he suggested that Americans donate to are appropriate for emergencies and temporary relief, but are not sustainable and conducive to a country developing on its own. While donations and investments are to be encouraged, and to some degree even enforced, no country should solely bear the burden of supporting another.

SOURCES USED. World in Conversation Project. 2012. Pennsylvania State University http://www.worldinconversation.org/our-projects/haiti-entrepreneur-initiative/

Rampell, Catherine. Why so many rich people dont feel very rich. New York Times. 2011. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/why-so-many-richpeople-dont-feel-very-rich/

United States fund for Unicef. 2012. http://inside.unicefusa.org/site/PageNavigator/Monthly_Giving_2011.html?gclid=C MTCluLG3K0CFUOo4Aodvh-pmA

Miller, Roger LeRoy. The Micro View. 16th Edition. Pearson Education. 2012. Pages 48-50.