singer solution to world poverty too demanding

Is the Singer Solution to World Poverty too demanding? Philosophy of ValueDepartment of Philosophy, University of Nottingham V7DVALSachin Nandha

Is the Singer Solution to World Poverty too demanding?

In this essay, I will be concerned with the Singer solution to world poverty. I will

analyse the Singer proposal through studying two examples that he uses in his paper,

one of which he borrows from Peter Unger. I will highlight the ethical distinctions

between the examples Singer uses and their relation to the people he is addressing,

namely, the people in the developed nations of the world. In order to understand the

Singer solution, I will have to understand the paradigm from which it stems – a

consequentialist theory called Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the ethical theory that

promotes actions as moral if it increases overall ‘happiness’ and classifies actions as

immoral if they reduce ‘happiness’. Within Utilitarianism there are two forms that I

will consider in the essay, namely, act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism. Act-

utilitarianism is the doctrine that applies actions directly, so that an individual action

is right if it increases happiness more than any alternative. Rule-utilitarianism is the

doctrine that holds one ought to act in conformity with a code of rules and conformity

with these rules by everyone would maximise utility. By utility, I mean the basic unit

of desirability or happiness (Blackburn, 1996). I will clearly show the limitations of

both the Utilitarian forms and relate them to the Singer solution, concluding with six

points as to why the Singer solution is too demanding.

The Singer Solution is composed of several fictitious examples, which he uses to

make several striking points about ones duties and what one ‘ought’ to do. His first

example is that of a

‘Retired schoolteacher who makes ends meet by sitting at the train station

writing letters for illiterate people. Suddenly she has an opportunity to make

$1000. All she has to do is to persuade a homeless 9-year-old boy to follow

her to an address she has been given. She is told that a wealthy family will

adopt the boy. She delivers the boy and gets the money, spends some of it on a

new television set and settles down to enjoy her new acquisition. Her

neighbour spoils the fun, however, by telling her that the boy was too old to be

adopted – he will be killed and his organs used for transplantations.’ (Singer

1999)

1


Singer then points out that if the schoolteacher does not go back and save the child by

returning the television set and the $1000 back to whoever gave it, she would be

classed as immoral. The only way she can redeem herself is by sacrificing her new

television set and her $1000. He then points out that most people in the developed

nations are in the same situation as the schoolteacher. In the example, the teacher is

required to give up her television set and a $1000 to save a boys life. Singer says that

most people in the developed nations could save the lives of hundreds of children in

some of the poorest nations by sacrificing some of their luxuries and donating the

surplus to charity. According to Singer one third of the wages of an average

American is spent on luxuries that could, if donated, save the lives of many children

around the world.

This raises the question ‘what is the ethical distinction between the schoolteacher who

sells a homeless child to organ peddlers and an American who already owns a TV and

upgrades to a better one – knowing that the money could be donated to an

organisation that would use it to save the lives of children in need?’ There are several

obvious distinctions. Firstly, for somebody to be able to consign a child to death

when he is in front of you takes a certain kind of extreme heartlessness; it is a lot

easier however, to ignore an appeal for money to help children you will never meet.

Secondly, the schoolteacher was the culprit in the first place who sold the boy to the

organ peddlers (knowingly or unknowingly) whereas the individual in the developed

nation feels that he is not directly responsible for the situation of the worlds poor.

Singer points out that even though these differences exist between the comparisons,

the consequences are what matters in the end. This naturally comes from the fact that

the Singer solution to world poverty is based in the Utilitarian paradigm.

Unger in his book ‘Living high, Letting die’ (1996) introduces a series of imaginary

examples in order to probe our intuitions about whether it is wrong to live well

without giving substantial amounts of money to help people who are hungry,

malnourished or dying of easily curable diseases. His most probing example (that

Singer borrows in his solution) is that of a man who is close to retirement. He has

invested most of his savings in a very rare and valuable old car, which he has not been

able to insure. The car is his pride and joy, or in other words he gets vast amounts of

2


pleasure from owning and driving his car. In addition, to him enjoying his car, he

also realises that the car has a rising market value which means that he will be able to

sell it one day and use the money for his retirement. On an occasion he parks his new

car on a disused railway track and decides to take a walk along side it. During his

walk, he sees that a run away train with no one on board is approaching. Looking

further down the track, he sees the small figure of a child very likely to be killed by

the train. He is in no position to tell the child of the on coming danger nor can he stop

the speeding train. However, he sees a switch that will divert the train away from the

child but in direct collision with his car. Unger points out that if he throws the switch,

no body would be killed but his car would be destroyed. Thinking about the joy the

car brings and its added financial security, he decides not to divert the train and allows

for the child to be killed.

Most people would acknowledge that the man’s actions were immoral as a child’s life

is more valuable than his car. However, Singer points out (using Unger’s example)

that most people in the developed nations are in a similar position to the man in the

example. Singer reminds us that we too can save the lives of many children if we

sacrifice our own financial security. Singer’s argument can be summarised in the

following manner, a) If we can prevent something bad from happening without

sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we ought to do so, b)

death by aids is bad therefore c) we can prevent many people from dying of aids by

sacrificing our luxuries, which are not as important. Hence Singer’s argument leads

to d) ‘we ought to prevent people from dying of aids by sacrificing our luxuries’ and

this is the heart of the Singer Solution.

This example is more comparable than the one of the schoolteacher to our own lives.

Firstly, the man in the example did not know the child on the rail tracks who he was

sacrificing for his own material comforts, secondly, he did not mislead the child nor

did he start the chain of events that would kill the child. The man’s situation

resembles that of people who are able but unwilling to donate to charity and therefore

differs from the example of the schoolteacher. The only difference between the man

in the example and the rest of us is that only he can save the life of a child, whereas

most of us can simply rely on someone else to donate the money required. The

question arises ‘does relying on someone else make one immoral?’ Also, if most

3


people rely on someone else to donate the money that could save a child’s life then

most people are not donating. And if most people are not charitable can this be a

justifiable reason for us not to be so? This would be an endorsement of ‘follow-the-

crowd’ mentality. Singer links this question to the actions of the German people in

WWII and notes that one cannot justify an action as moral just because the majority

are following suite. If however, someone was to contest this point, Singer could

easily use the persecution of the Jews in Nazi Germany as a conclusive example that

morality cannot simply be what the majority are inclined to do. (Singer 1999)

There are several flaws in Singer’s argument. Firstly, Singer’s claim that people

should donate an equivalent amount of money that otherwise would be spent on

luxuries is not a feasible claim, in that money alone is not the problem. One is

entitled to ask ‘will my money reach the worlds poor?’ ‘Can I be sure that it will

make a difference?’ If someone is unsure how the money will be spent, then are they

not justified in not giving? Singer does not give a clear response to this question,

however, a typical Singer response would be that even if not all the money that one

donates is used to save a life, but is instead partly consumed by corrupted officials,

Singer says that it still does not alter the moral argument as even part of the donated

money is enough to make a difference (Singer 1999).

The second flaw in the Singer solution to world poverty, stems from premise ‘d’ –

‘we ought to prevent people from dying of aids by sacrificing our luxuries’. This does

not merely follow from Singers premise ‘c’ – ‘we can prevent many people from

dying of aids by sacrificing our luxuries, which are not as important’, because what

actually makes the man in Unger’s example immoral is that only he was in a position

to save a child’s life and hence was immoral for not doing so. An additional premise

seems to be required, something to the effect that ‘you are the only person who could

save the life of an aids sufferer’. However, if this sort of premise were added, it

would be false because it applies to any of us (it is not true that only you can save the

life of an aids sufferer). Therefore, the argument is unsound. Singer clearly denies

that an additional premise is required, instead he says that since we know that most

people will not step up to the “plate”, we can be sure that our donation would save a

life that would not otherwise be saved. This is enough to show that we have a moral

obligation. Otherwise, we are guilty of “follow-the-crowd” ethics.

4


The final and the strongest charge against the Singer solution is that it is simply too

demanding. For this, Singer’s response is “too bad, no body said that it would be easy

to meet our moral obligations and merely because a theory is demanding does not

make it false” (Singer 2000). This is not exactly an argument that Singer puts forward

but merely a conclusive statement. In order to understand the demanding-ness of the

Singer solution I will now analyse the paradigm from which the solution stems from –

Act-utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism is simply the endorsement of pursuing those acts, which produce the

best consequences. By ‘best consequences’ a Utilitarian means ‘the greatest

happiness for the greatest number’. It seems to reduce all moral issues to

consequences and neglects the act in itself. For example a Utilitarian would easily

endorse the sacrifice of a child if it meant that a 1000 people could be saved as all that

matters are the consequences and in this case, one child is insignificant to the lives of

a 1000 people. Therefore, relaying back to the Singer Solution, one can note that he

sees no problem with everyone in the developed nations who can afford to do so to

give all their surplus money to charity, as it will produce the best consequences for the

greatest number. It also explains why Singer believes so strongly that if one does not

act in this manner then they are failing their moral obligations.

It does not seem so clear-cut that giving away ones surplus wealth to charity would

produce the best consequences – it could equally have a negative effect. For example,

imagine that everyone in the developed nations gave away all their surplus wealth (a

challenge in itself – as how would one gauge what exactly is necessity and what is

surplus) and all this money went to save the lives of the world’s poor from starvation,

disease and war. What would be the consequences on the economies of the developed

nations if everyone began to live on a basis of needs and not consumerism? Many

thousands of people would surely lose their jobs as a result of reduced consumption

directly due to the fact that all the surplus wealth is now in the third world. To

imagine a little further, would be to imagine that the once developed nations become

economically poor, maybe even poorer than the third world. To this effect the Singer

solution even fails the Utilitarian criteria of morality, as the consequences highlighted

above would reduce people’s happiness.

5


Singer in his solution identifies with the help of experts what sums of money are

required to be given by the average American if he is to be considered moral. He

states that an American household with an annual income of $50,000 spends

approximately $30,000 on necessities, and hence should be giving $20,000 to charity

annually. An American household earning $70,000 also only spends $30,000 on

necessities and so should be giving away $40,000 annually. The Utilitarian formula

used by Singer is simple; give all excess money to charity in order to fulfil ones moral

obligation.

The limitations to Singer’s solution are in sync with the limitations of Act and Rule-

Utilitarianism at large. Let us consider act-utilitarianism first. Suppose a family

decides to adopt the Singer solution. They decide that they will not send their two

children to University as it is not necessary and instead donate the surplus wealth to

charity. Immediately, Singer may point out that University education is indeed a

necessity for ones children and so the actions of the family would be immoral if they

were not to send them for further education. However, can Peter Singer or anybody

else decide what is necessity and what is not for another – the point being that under

act-utilitarianism the individual is responsible directly for making the moral decision.

If the individual is responsible for judging what is necessity and what is not, then no

body is in a position to comment on another’s moral conduct. For example, Bob and

Sue both earn the same yearly wage and live next to each other. Bob feels that his

necessities cost him $30,000 a year and so donates $20,000 to charity annually while

Sue believes that her necessities cost her $49,600 annually and so donates $400 to

charity. Does this make Sue any less of a moral person than Bob? The Utilitarian

would attempt to analyse the consequences of each action, and would face an

impossible task in deciding which are the best and most desirable. Even the simple

decision to send ones children to University or to spend the money on saving the

world’s poor becomes an impossible decision to make. Hence, Act-Utilitarianism is

simply an unrealistic decision making tool which morality cannot be based upon.

If then one concludes that the individual cannot possibly know all the best

consequences, then maybe an authoritative group can draw out guidelines for the

individual to follow, hence rule-utilitarianism. Singer in his paper does not clearly

endorse that his solution be applied within a rule-utilitarian context, nevertheless I

6


will analyse its feasibility. Rule-utilitarianism holds that one ought to act in

conformity with a code of rules and conformity with these rules by everyone would

maximise utility. By utility, I mean ‘the basic unit of desirability’ (Blackburn, 1996).

So a rule-utilitarian formula to the Singer solution would be if a government were to

endorse the solution by creating a law, which makes every individual, donate all his or

her surplus wealth to charity. Therefore, to be moral would simply mean conforming

to the rules of the institution that would bring about the best consequences for

everyone. The advantages of rule-utilitarianism in comparison to act-utilitarianism is

that individuals no longer have think about moral issues for themselves, they simply

conform to the views of the state as that would bring about the maximum utility,

according to the above example.

Just as act-utilitarianism has its limitations so does rule-utilitarianism and hence the

Singer solution becomes increasingly uncertain in both forms. An objection to this

second form of utilitarianism is that it ignores what people are actually doing and

mindlessly attempts to figure out which code of rules would produce the best results if

everyone were to conform to them. An example would be if an imaginary nation ‘A’

endorses the Singer solution and introduces a law (call it law ‘z’) that makes every

citizen donate all his or her surplus wealth to charity, as a result of which the

individual becomes poorer (at least materially). However, in the neighbouring hostile

nation ‘B’, no such endorsement is taken up and its citizens continue to grow

wealthier (again at least materially) as a result of which nation B becomes a stronger

nation than A, which will eventually become a serious threat to nation A. Therefore,

due to the fact nation A endorsed the Singer solution and morally adopted rule-

utilitarianism it has put itself in a rather vulnerable position due to nation B not

following a similar moral code. Singer could respond to this type of criticism by

simply stating that as the long-term consequences of law ‘z’ are bad in terms of utility

and therefore no utilitarian government would endorse such a law. The question

arises ‘can anyone actually predict accurately the consequences of any act or

conformation to a rule’? I would say no.

The above example suggests that what other people are doing is a relevant part of

one’s circumstances that determine how one ought to conduct oneself. Rule-

utilitarianism proposes that we should ignore what other people are doing in deciding

7


what we ought to do. This conclusion seems to be contradictory to Singer’s view that

moral issues ‘cannot be discovered through opinion polls or what the majority are

doing.’ (Singer, 1999)

Another argument developed against the rule-utilitarianism paradigm in effect urges

that it either collapses into act-utilitarianism or takes a form that is extremely

unappealing. Either way it is unviable, the argument concludes. It is a simple

argument that asks us to begin with a simple common-sense rule such as ‘I must

always tell the truth’. The rule is clearly complimentary to the principle of utility and

so can be considered as a potential rule based on utilitarianism. Suppose that I

discover an occasion (call this occasion U) where a greater amount of utility can be

gained from breaking the rule ‘I must always tell the truth’. I then amend the rule so

that it becomes, ‘I must always tell the truth unless I am in situation U’. After

sometime, I discover another situation (this time call it V) where I gain more utility

from breaking the rule ‘I must always tell the truth unless I am in situation U’, and so

I amend the rule once again to include the situation V. Extrapolating this point, leads

to the eventual collapse of rule-utilitarianism and a fall into act-utilitarianism or a

very messy rule, one which states ‘I must always tell the truth unless I am in situation

U, V, X, Y and so on and so forth. In other words rule-utilitarianism leads us into a

chain of amendments which either collapses into act-utilitarianism or a rule that

cannot be followed.

Using the argument against rule-utilitarianism in the context of the Singer solution,

we can now prove that premise d) ‘we ought to prevent people from dying of aids by

sacrificing our luxuries’ would eventually collapse by amending the rule every time

greater utility is obtained from breaking it. So, for example, nation A, under the

threat of hostile nation B can amend the rule into something like ‘we ought to prevent

people from dying of aids by sacrificing our luxuries only if we are not threatened by

a hostile nation’. This rule can further be amended into something like ‘we ought to

prevent people from dying of aids by sacrificing our luxuries only if we are not

threatened by a hostile nation and if our economy is not detrimentally affected’.

Continuing this path would very quickly lead to the collapse of the rule in nation A or

it becomes unusable.

8


I have shown that the solution proposed by Singer stems from the utilitarian

paradigm. However, under either version act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism the

Singer solution seems too demanding to be practically implemented. In short, the

Peter Singer solution fails due to its demanding-ness on the individual or group and it

could actually have adverse effects in the long-term to the people in the developed

nations to whom Singer seems to be addressing. The reasons for the downfall of the

Singer solution are as follows; 1) simply contributing money to the third world will

not resolve all its problems and hence Singer seems to have oversimplified the

problem; 2) Singer’s premise ‘d’ does not follow from ‘c’, from the example that he

has used; 3) could actually have adverse long-term effects on the developed nations

and hence reduce utility; 4) under act-utilitarianism it becomes impossible for the

individual to even make the most simple moral decisions simply due to the fact that it

becomes impossible to predict consequences; 5) under rule-utilitarianism, the solution

would fail to recognize what people are actually doing and as a result becomes

practically unviable; and finally 6) rule-utilitarianism would eventually collapse into

act-utilitarianism or become a very undesirable set of rules.

Bibliography

1. Blackburn, Simon, 1996, Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford University

Press

2. Dreier, James, 2004, Moral Theories, Blackwell Publishers

3. Mill, J.S., 1861, Utilitarianism, Oxford University Press

4. Singer, Peter, 2000, The Singer Solution to World Poverty, The Best American

essays, Houghton Miflin, pp. 140-146

5. Unger, Peter, 1996, Living High, Letting Die, Oxford University Press

9

singer solution to world poverty too demanding

Documents