My opinion to The Singer Solution to World Poverty

I am posting this as a memorandum. This is not written out through a deep thought, but responses should still properly reflect my identity.

Q1. Was it morally wrong of Bob to refrain from throwing the switch, thus allowing the child to die? Is there any moral difference between Bob’s decision and the decision of well-off people to spend money on luxuries rather than the alleviation of poverty?

From a broader perspective, I think neither Bob nor well-off people are morally wrong. As citizens living under the law, they fulfill their obligations and sustain society. If their spending is necessary to keep them functioning as a cog in the machine, it can be seen as essential, much like food or housing.

Furthermore, even if we were to grant that their actions are somewhat immoral, I believe the root cause does not stem from greed or arrogance, but rather from US culture as a whole. To me, it is like blaming a murder on a person’s arm, when the spotlight should be on the person as a whole, in a common-sense view. Simply being a part of a system does not automatically entail moral responsibility.

Q2. One difference between the case of Bob and the case of someone not giving to charity is that Bob is the only person in a position to prevent the child’s death, while many people are in a position to give charity. Why doesn’t Singer think that this is a morally relevant difference? Do you agree with him?

The latter case is essentially a multiplication of the former, meaning they are considered equivalent in principle. However, I disagree with him from a different perspective. In Bob’s case, he had to sacrifice a significant amount of wealth and his future hopes, whereas people who donate to charity typically do not face such a heavy cost or risk. This line of reasoning is also supported by current law: committing a minor offense thousands of times does not result in the death penalty.

Q3. How much of our income does Singer think we are morally required to give away? Do you find his standard reasonable?

Based on his value, we are ought to give away like 30% of our eventual incomes. An act of donation sounds reasonable only if an agent actually cares about children.

Q4. How does Singer respond to the objection that his theory is too demanding, and that people will never make the sacrifices he suggests? Do you find his response convincing?

He would come up with another analogy tailored to the audience in question. I do not really find him convincing, as I still cannot related to the proximity of child somewhere on the Earth just like those in front of me, who would potentially act in a way that will intrude into my emotional critical.

Q5. One might respond to Singer’s proposals by claiming that instead of individuals contributing money to alleviate world poverty, governments should be responsible for handling such efforts. Why doesn’t Singer think that this undermines his view that middle-class people should give large percentages of their income to charity?

Because he believes that middle-class people can move with their will. In my opinion, however, there is no such a thing as autonomy; we move just like how weather keeps changing via bilateral influence.