“The Singer Solution to World Poverty”

            Peter Singer’s essay, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” addresses important ethical questions.  He targets Americans with excess money in a demand to donate it to others with greater need, or accept that they are living immorally.  Singer cites a statistic from the Conference Board, but does not give enough evidence to prove the statistic relevant.  He states, “An American household with an income of $50,000 spends around $30,000 annually on necessities.”  This statistic is naturally questionable- how did the Conference Board produce it?  How are “necessities” defined?  The paragraph about this then weakens his credibility. 

In the same paragraph, Singer controversially states, “Whatever money you’re spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away”.  He calls on Americans’ moral obligation to donate this money towards saving children’s lives.  However, he fails to address any other ways Americans can help others.  People can volunteer their time, or if working, one may have a job that is actively trying to find solution to the plights of others, like a teacher educating, and thereby enabling, illiterate women in patriarchal countries where women’s literacy rates are drastically lower than men’s, which may make women less powerful to help their families and more dependent on men.  People can vote for change in America, as well as make change in other ways through politics.  Why does Singer not mention any of these options, or others, if he is really interested in helping the impoverished?  While money is needed, it is often the distribution of money and power, and not a shortage of money to be had, that becomes problematic.  While those who have received the short-end of that, it is important to help.  Help can and should go far beyond the donations to charities solely suggested by Singer.

            Singer improves his credibility by rationally explaining the reason he focuses on children in his composition.  He states, “I do not believe that children are more worth saving than adults, but since no one can argue that children have brought their poverty on themselves, focusing on them simplifies the issues”.  This argument targets people who may believe it is more important to save children, people who believe saving children or adults is equally important, and people who may be undecided between the two.  Singer’s point is not to prove whose life is more worth saving- it is to demonstrate a moral obligation for people with the ability to donate money, and the only group he excludes with this statement are people who believe adults are more worth saving than children, so everyone else is tied into this cause of helping save children’s lives with their excess money.

            Singer strengthens his argument by exploring hypothetical situations.  These hypothetical situations parallel middle-class Americans to extremely wealthy in their ability and moral obligation to help those in dire need, which is a very strong argument in itself. 

While presentation of an argument is important because it often determines the receptivity of those it calls to action, it is truly the ideas that matter most.  The man who wrote, “All men are created equal” in American’s Declaration of Independece owned slaves.  That fact could hurt his credibility, but is the idea itself any less valid (aside from its use of the word “men” instead of people)?  Singer’s essay creates discussion about moral responsibility.  Judging by the excess epitomized by Supersizes at McDonald’s and American materialism, this discussion is highly necessary.  “Popular culture” is typically not raising consciousness- for youth, popular media often is sadly quite the opposite.  They hear it on the radio, they see it on television- if they want better awareness and progress, they need to seek it out themselves.  Singer’s essay counters some of the media that promotes mindless, illogical following.  Social progress needs to happen faster, and people need to stop merely scapegoating events outside their control and start making change.  Websites and organizations, such as http://petition.thebodyshop-usa.com/sign-petition.php, http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/clickToGive/home.faces?siteId=3, change.org, Somaly Mam, AFESIP, Loaves and Fishes, YWCA, Haitian Health Foundation, domestic violence shelters, are just a few of the many, many ways people can start making change.

Solving Aggression- Is Controlling Media the Best Way?

"The television screen is the lens through which most children learn about violence" (263).  Where are the parents?  This statement points in the direction that violence could be better solved by improving the education of children and parents.  Sissela Bok's argument depends on the perceptions of the child and adolescent viewers- it assumes that they will see violence and emulate it, despite its context and without influence from their own ethics or experience. 

            Bok recognizes that other factors are involved in violent crime and that “not even the total elimination of media violence would wipe out the problem of violence” (263).  Why?  One of the characteristics present in almost every violent act is a circumstance of passion over-taking rationality.  Preventing children from seeing violent images does nothing to combat this.  Children have active imaginations and it is dangerous to assume they lack capacity to think of violence without television’s influence.  It is therefore necessary to combat this.  Children acting without logic or guidance, on mere impulse, are most susceptible to observational learning of negative actions.  Educating children is more important than sheltering them.  Thoughtful consciousness should be more highly valued and sought.  Rather than putting ear muffs on children to keep them from hearing “bad words”, teach them that they have the choice of how they express themselves and the uselessness of hatred and anger in relating to others.  This same logic applies to violence.  Children are constantly surrounded by opportunities to do good and bad.  Rather than trying to control the things they see, try to influence children with positive, accepting thought patterns and peaceful conflict resolution. 

Imagine all the other crimes and worries of the world that could be decreased through a population of people more often driven first by logic and then passion. Now if the children are choosing violence through solid logic, which is undoubtedly less often the case, educating children of their place in society and working for children to feel loved, supported and secure is more direct and impactful than putting blinders over their eyes.  There are television ratings and warnings that already exist to shelter children from violent images, as well as parental controls on some televisions.  The education of children needs to be pushed, and primarily targeting media violence is a distraction from this that society really needs.