Posted: August 18th, 2022

Rebuttal Essay

Rebutal
The author Peter Singer uses many examples and realistic scenarios in his book The Life
You Can Save to help the audience reflect and find a new perspective on the issue of poverty.
Also, he provides very good evidence about how wealthy people spend their money, and he
makes the argument that most Americans spend their money on things that are not even
necessary for them on a daily basis. Citizens in severe poverty live on the equivalent of $1.25 per
day, and 1.4 billion people have less. According to Singer, the middle and upper classes should
donate all of their extra money to save the lives of the poor because it is critical for them to
understand the difference between a luxury and a necessity. Similarly, he believes that in order to
eradicate poverty from the world, individuals must limit their extravagant consumption.
Nevertheless, Peter Singer’s solution and perspective on global poverty fail to take logical
consideration into account. For example, everyone should set aside some money and time to
unwind and enjoy themselves, because it is morally wrong to bind someone to a solution to a
problem that they did not cause. And these issues of extreme poverty will not be resolved unless
local institutions and corrupt governments are changed.Furthermore, Singer’s arguments lack
accountabilities, which allow for moral shame over the challenging circumstances of poverty
victims around the world. While Peter Singer provides many realistic examples and scenarios in
his book, The Life You Can Save, regarding donating one’s extra income to help those in
poverty, his fails to logically consider individual financial responsibilities to spend earned money
Neely 2
on personal obligations and enjoyment and, simultaneously, failing to recognized institutional
and governmental accountability to uplift and support citizens in need.
Since humans think of donations, the first thing that springs to mind is that they benefit
the poor. A donation is designed to assist the poor in their own country and in third-world
countries. But first, let’s look at international donation policies. We send a large portion of in out
donation money to poor countries, and we start taking foreign aid for granted as a result. In
accordance with the US-based Global Financial Integrity and the Norwegian School of
Economics’ center for applied research, “In 2012, the most recent year for which data is
available, emerging markets received a total of $1.3 trillion in foreign aid, investment, and
income. However, $3.3 trillion cascaded out of them in the same year. To put it another way,
developing nations sent $2 trillion so much to the rest of the planet than they received” (Hickel,
Par.5).Based on the evidence, it will be completely obvious that we have been taking far more
than we are giving. When we compare the amounts, it appears that we are looking to give one
dollar to someone while taking away three dollars in return. As a result, we are making the poor
poorer. Singer stated in his book The Life You Can Save that “by donating to aid agencies, you
can prevent suffering and death from a lack of food, shelter, and medical care.” (15). Providing is
nonetheless a charity to which no one is entitled. Without any obligation, one should donate
freely based on their generosity, attributes, traits, desires, or the type of gift they want to give.
Singer failed because he linked charitable contributions to commitments instead of free will.
Interestingly, Singer’s statement in the book is ambivalent even though he really do not provide
sufficient data concerning foreign aid agencies, which do little more than conceal the unequal
distribution of resources throughout the globe. Furthermore, he continues to fail to do is provide
evidence that donations intended to help young kids are actually serving that purpose. All
Neely 3
organizations require competent citizens to work for a non-profit, and all of these organizations
compensate their qualified employees. The solution is that those impoverished countries do not
require charity, but rather justice against corrupt governments.
A number of these regions have ample natural resources, but there own people remain
poor since the government is not accountable, and many resources intended for the people end up
in the pockets of powerful individuals. Humans often realize that there have been millions of
individuals who demand assistance in each and every way; people also recognize that economic
inequality is a never-ending loop; for several individuals in the recent decades, it has been a way
of life. Researchers constantly hear that malnourishment is a biggest cause of mortality, despite
the efforts of non-profit organizations and other institutions that have raised funds to assist. Mr.
Singer wants everyone to consider giving more, however he is evangelizing towards the wrong
crowd. Rather than assigning blame solely, Peter Singer attempts to neutralise his own erroneous
culpability by convincing his audience to start sharing everything with him (Par.17). However, it
is morally reprehensible to blame anyone who did not cause the violence disaster for another
mistake. Generally speaking, Singer’s proposition displayed that he wishes for his audience to
address the problem. As a result, his judgment is incorrect: if don’t give to charity, one is
performing something incorrectly (16). When one does not give money to the charity, it does not
insinuate that any one isn’t doing enough to help the very poor. One might help directly by
providing assistance the exceptionally poor with health-care needs, education, school
construction, and clothing distribution. The African Medical and Research Foundation and FarmAfrica “started their engineering work in Katrine in 2007.” Worms were discovered in a polluted
water supply near the Emuru swamp in the village of Abia. A shoddily designed as well as badly
managed superficial well digged by such a charity was replete of soil and animal faces, making
Neely 4
local residents sick” (Hawthorne, Par.4). Most of all, emerging economies cannot return every
three months to repair the damage and supply people with supplies. Peter Singer’s declarations
fail to have an essential counterpoint about third-world deprivation, which cannot be eradicated
through donations because it is linked to a lack of education, access to capital, poor health, and
community loyalties.
As a direct consequence, if somehow the world’s poor continue to receive all of the
assistance from charitable organizations, they may become hesitant to fix their roots in cultural
underlying issues. This same course of action is not to give them all of their money, but to guide
them in such a way that they can get right back up and running. Donating towards the
impoverished poor of the third world can help dissuade beneficiaries from addressing one‘s own
long term issues, that will aggravate the situation and boost poverty cases rather than decrease
them. In Bangladesh and India, for example, there are many panhandlers who reap the benefits of
people’s sympathy, and the majority among them are young people who are capable of working
hard to alter one‘s style of life. According to research, these young men, women, and children
are part of a group that views begging as a legitimate profession. Part of the experience would be
to earn money off people without doing anything, instead of revealing complete strangers
regarding one‘s completely bogus personal stories, lying concerning their authentic self, and so
on. There’s very few panhandlers in the nation who really are going to beg because they’re
disabled, unable to work, or those who are old and blind (Phukan, Par.2). However, donating
cash is not the solution to the world poverty problem because corrupt politicians will often keep
their regions in poverty in order to be eligible for international assistance, thus taking cash for
their egoistic dictatorships instead of simply placing it into the community.
Neely 5
Finally, Singer never acknowledges that there may be issues underlying world poverty
that go beyond finances, as economic experts have been saying for decades. In fact, most of
Peter Singer’s arguments revolve around determining how much money should be thrown at
poverty, which is regarded as one of the more complicated crises, which is why it is difficult to
eradicate poverty through donation. In summary, the explanation for poverty is not allowing
them to have all of that money, but guiding them in a way that could get them right back on their
feet. Building schools, for example, will allow them to be educated and will encourage them to
get jobs.Similarly, creating employment workshops and opportunities will encourage unfortunate
people to do their own thing rather than relying on others to give them money. Giving is a
charitable act, and no one should force you to do so; it is up to you to do so willingly.
Neely 6
Works Cited
Hickel, Jason. “Aid in reverse: how poor countries develop rich countries.” The Guardian. 14
Jan. 2017.Web. 1 Jan.2019. https://www.theguardian.com/global-developmentprofessionals-network/2017/jan/14/aid-in- reverse-how-poor-countries-develop-richcountries
Hawthorne, John. “5 Reason why donations to the poor may bring bad results”. Business
Connect. 7 Jan.2019. Web. 2 Jan.2019.

5 Reasons why donations to the poor may bring bad results!


Phukan, Rumani. “Begging in India: A Menacen to the society”. My India. 10 August,
2014.
Response to Peter Singer’s solution to world Poverty”. Mightywrites. 18 Feb.2012. Web. 2
Jan.2019.
Singer, Peter. The Life You Can Save. Random House, 2009.

Expert paper writers are just a few clicks away

Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.

Calculate the price of your order

You will get a personal manager and a discount.
We'll send you the first draft for approval by at
Total price:
$0.00