The Singer Solution to World Poverty

Philosopher Peter Singer, known for his uncompromising commitment to utilitarian principles, published his opinion editorial “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” in The New York Times Magazine on 5 September 1999. In the essay, Singer argues that the inhabitants of affluent countries have a moral obligation to donate a significant portion of their wealth to charities that can save lives around the world.

Singer begins by describing a situation from the 1998 Brazilian film Central Station. In the film, a woman named Dora accepts payment for leading a homeless boy to a particular address, thinking he will be adopted. She uses the money to purchase a TV. Later, Dora’s neighbor tells her that the boy will be killed and his organs sold; Dora resolves to recover the boy.

Singer posits that viewers would consider Dora a “monster” if she did anything else. He then draws parallels between Dora’s situation and that of Americans who spend money on unnecessary things, such as vacations and fashionable clothes. Singer suggests that they should instead donate these funds to charities with the power to saves children’s lives. He acknowledges some difference between the two situations, such as the physical distance between the wealthy and the at-risk children, but insists that the two scenarios are morally identical for anyone who “judges whether acts are right or wrong by their consequences” (61).

Singer then describes a hypothetical situation from a book by philosopher Peter Unger. A man named Bob parks his uninsured Bugatti, a luxury vehicle in which he has invested most of his wealth, near railroad tracks. Going for a walk, he sees an empty runaway train speeding toward a small child, who will likely die. He is too far away to warn the child, but he could flip a switch to send the train toward his Bugatti instead. Bob does not flip the switch, and the child dies, leaving Bob to enjoy his Bugatti.

According to Singer, most readers will disagree with Bob’s choice. Singer insists that those readers face a similar dilemma: a $200 donation to the right charity could help an at-risk child survive. He goes on to provide the names and contact info of two such organizations mentioned by Unger. Addressing readers directly, Singer urges them to take action and emphasizes the similarity of their situations to Bob’s hypothetical one: Even though Bob didn’t know the child and wasn’t responsible for the child’s predicament, he should have sacrificed his Bugatti.

Singer addresses counterclaims some readers may raise. For those who doubt the efficacy of aid, Singer insists that certain charities are objectively capable of saving lives, and that Unger’s $200 estimate is a conservative one. To those who point out that most people are not donating, Singer explains that, no matter how many people (“Carol, Dave, Emma, Fred, and so on, down to Ziggy”) face Bob’s same situation, the ethics would not change (62).

Singer pushes his argument even further. Giving $200 might not be enough. In theory, someone could donate all money not necessary for their survival. Singer questions how much sacrifice would be too large to ask of Bob, even up to and including the amputation of his leg (if it were caught in the railroad tracks). He suggests that a similar commitment by many Americans would be closer to $200,000 than $200. Rather than acting in keeping with typical behavior, virtually everyone can and should give more.

Other readers might object to paying “more than [their] fair share” while suggesting that governments should take the lead (63), ensuring participation by all taxpayers. Singer responds that, realistically, governments are unlikely to prioritize giving aid, and that delaying action in the name of fairness is insufficient justification for letting children die.

Singer concludes by reiterating his central claim that people should donate all their extra money. A household with $50,000 yearly income that spends $30,000 on necessities should donate $20,000. Even if we fall short of that mark, it is good to be aware of the shortfall, because “knowing where we should be going is the first step toward heading in that direction” (63).