Download Comparing Solutions to Poverty in the World

Comparing Solutions to Poverty in the World
by
David Liu
Writing 39B
Professor Concannon
March 22, 2004
Acknowledgements
For this essay, I would like to thank my suitemates, Eduardo Rivera and Luis Flores, for
allowing me to read their essays in order to help get ideas on ways to organize and compose my
essay. I would also like to thank my peer editors – Dave Giannino and Jill Nakamura.
In today’s society, how often does one run into an instance of poverty? A more
important question might be how often does one do something about it? It is not hard nowadays
to see a homeless person on the side of the road and chances are, it would not be hard to find a
person out there who has turned their head to a homeless person instead of offering some help.
Does that make every person in society a cold-hearted monster? Peter Singer addresses this
question in his essay, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” by stating that it is not up to
society to feel horrible about the insensitivity of its actions; instead, it is society’s responsibility
to realize the excess of leisure it experiences in its every day life. If each individual were to
donate this excess to the “poor,” it would be the first major step toward eliminating all poverty
from the world, according to Singer. Following the same lines is Garrett Hardin who, like
Singer, is supportive of American society realizing their beneficial situation; however he argues
that instead of donating these luxuries, society should utilize them to the fullest. Also, in
Hardin’s world, these “luxuries” become seats in a lifeboat (which represent certain limited
resources) that are available only within the wealthy nations, while the poor are left to struggle
and compete for any remaining seats in the lifeboat. Though these conditions sound harsh,
Hardin is able to establish a more convincing stand on the problem of poverty by using a wellstructured set of reasonable points that make it easier for the reader to agree with him. Singer,
however, struggles to find solid ground in his argument, as he trusts the reader to be convinced
by a series of weak examples that fall short because of continuing flaws and his degrading tone.
One tactic that both authors use is binary logic; the reason one author is able to establish
a more convincing argument is through the different ways each uses their binary logic. Quite
frequently throughout his essay, Singer uses binary logic in his attempts to sway the reader onto
his side. While this type of logic can be useful in many cases because of the fact that it forces
the reader to choose a side, Singer makes a mistake by implementing it in his argument since he
actually causes the reader to take the opposing side. Singer’s main scenario on which he bases
the majority of his points is the one involving Bob, a Bugatti, and a child who is about to be
killed by a runaway train. After describing the situation to the reader, the author proposes a
choice: either save the Bugatti or save the child. While this tactic does cause the reader to start
realizing the futility of all the luxuries they own, the situation becomes too specific upon further
analysis to provide a solid argument. The reader finds themselves estranged and in an awkward
position when Singer asks them to make a decision. This feeling is enhanced, as Singer offers no
alternatives to an already bizarre predicament. The fact that the situation is introduced as
happening to another person, as well as the extreme rarity of the circumstances, causes the reader
to not only disagree with the author’s stance, but to retract themselves from the situation
completely. After the reader has done so, Singer’s logic tends to backfire on him as now both
the reader and the author are looking at the situation from the outside. Because Singer makes no
mention of any action he has taken, it causes Singer’s logic and tone to sound hypocritical. By
doing this, Singer has made his utilization of binary logic entirely ineffective.
A much more efficient use of binary logic can be seen in Garrett Hardin’s essay,
“Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor.” Hardin’s representation of the world as a
lifeboat where only the wealthy nations are granted seats within the boat provides a much more
effective use of binary logic. Hardin, in the same way Singer does, presents a choice to the
reader by creating a life and death situation; however, unlike Singer, Hardin includes the reader
as well as himself in the unfortunate setting. In addition to this, Hardin produces a more
convincing argument since the situation he is describing to the reader is far closer to reality than
Singer’s. Hardin’s scenario, though it may be somewhat crude and lacking details, is a direct
representation of the world, while Singer uses a scenario that is entirely fictional. The reader
will obviously place much more stock in a decision made based on reality, and since Hardin has
already created an obvious choice for the reader to take, he has already established a much
stronger argument, while Singer is still struggling to get a decision out of the reader.
Hardin later informs the reader that the decision (whether or not to let others into the
lifeboat) will be made by both of them together. By including himself with the reader and
utilizing a direct appeal to the reader, Hardin automatically creates an unspoken bond between
the two that helps to quicken the reader’s decision to side with Hardin. Because of this bond that
Hardin has created, he is able to further convince the reader that his “solution clearly offers the
only means of [his and the reader’s] survival” even though “it is morally abhorrent to many
people” (453). In this line, Hardin is further able to use his binary logic through such words as
“clearly” and “only”; with these words, not only does Hardin make the decision black and white
for the reader, but he also underlines which one is the right answer. Once again, he is able to do
this because he himself is in the lifeboat with the reader, and is also making the same decision.
Hardin also strengthens his point with the phrase “morally abhorrent to many people”. There is
no doubt that the reader may have guilt regarding their choice to ignore those who do not have a
seat in the lifeboats, however, when Hardin reminds the reader that this was a horrible situation
no matter what the reader’s choice was, he is able to strengthen the reader’s resolve about their
decision. Throughout this particular portion of the text, Hardin is acknowledging the reader’s
guilt and comforting them, as he continually reminds the reader that the people who may be
looking down on the reader are also looking down on him, further strengthening the bond
between himself and the reader.
Singer uses a direct appeal to the reader as well, however it is in vain due to the
previously mentioned hypocritical tone that he uses. Unlike Hardin who places himself next to
the reader and in the same dilemmas, Singer chooses to simply watch the reader as they struggle
to make a decision between the Bugatti and the child’s life. While this technique is efficient in
illustrating Singer’s point of the excess of leisure the reader most likely has in their life, it also
causes the reader to feel defensive, as if Singer is accusing them of a crime. In addition to this,
Singer’s tone when talking to the reader is similar to a schoolteacher scolding a student for
making a wrong decision. This is evident when Singer informs the reader that “[they], too, have
opportunities to save the lives of children” (440). Singer knows that the majority of his audience
(which he assumes to be the higher class citizens of America), most likely have never taken any
action toward helping the poor. Because of this, his mention of these opportunities causes the
reader to feel guilty; while this may be part of his objective, the ultimate result is the distancing
between Singer and the reader. Later in the essay, Singer informs the reader of actual
organizations they can call as well as the phone numbers to these organizations, knowing fullwell in the back of his mind that the reader will not call them. This causes the reader to feel as
though Singer is scolding the reader for their wrongdoings and in turn weakens his argument.
Another aspect of his essay that is lacking is a strong visualization of his argument. In
Singer’s world, everything has a monetary value: a dinner in a fancy restaurant, a car, even a
child’s life. Singer quotes Peter Unger’s figure of $200, which is all that is needed in order to
save a child’s life. Using this as foundation, Singer constructs an entire financial plan for the
reader through which they will be able to save as many children as financially possible.
According to his essay, an “American household … spends around $30,000 annually on
necessities” (443), and therefore should be able to donate the rest of their annual earnings to the
world’s poor. After analyzing this plan, the reader is able to identify all of the flaws in Singer’s
argument. By placing a monetary value on everything in a person’s life, Singer is saying that
every time the reader goes to a meal in a restaurant, it is because it saves money, or perhaps
because the reader simply has the money to spend. Singer disregards the fact that it might be
because of a favorite meal or some emotion that is evoked when the reader eats in that particular
restaurant. Singer makes another mistake my claiming that each American household spends
$30,000 a year on necessities. First of all, Singer’s source for this statistic is an organization
named the “Conference Board”, a name that does lend much credibility to the statement.
Secondly, Singer fails to acknowledge the fact that America also has a large poor population that
spends much less than the proposed figure on necessities. Thirdly, is it possible for Singer to be
able to know what the necessities for each family in America are? Even if he was able to do so,
his idea of donating the rest of the household’s income to charity is illogical for two main
reasons: the unspent money is usually saved for planned purchases in the future or saved simply
for purchases that the household is not aware of yet. As each of these flaws comes to light,
Singer makes it more and more difficult to establish any type of argument as it continually is
being broken down.
When compared to Singer, it is evident that Hardin presents a much stronger case through
his visualization of his points and his explanation of each to the reader. Hardin makes it a point
to constantly remind the reader that he is with them, making the same decisions in the same
situations. He does this by using the pronoun “we” frequently throughout his essay. By doing
this, he creates an atmosphere that makes the reader feel like he is right there talking to them on
the same level and in person, instead of scolding them from an authoritative stance. The level of
comfort Hardin creates helps the reader to take in the information he presents in a more calm and
logical manner. Another aspect of Hardin’s visualization of his argument that is comparable to
Singer’s is the evidence that he uses. While Singer uses facts and figures that, for all the reader
knows, may be made up, Hardin proposes statistics in a certain way so that the reader feels as
though the information is reliable, even though there is no cited source. He does this by
mentioning esteemed names such as “U.N. Secretary General Kurt Waldheim, and Senators
Edward Kennedy and George McGovern” (455). Hardin’s occasional mention of important
figures or names such as these, though it may be irrelevant, makes the reader believe that Hardin
is a trustworthy source for all of his information.
Hardin’s final technique in his visualization is in the actual evidence that he presents.
While Singer depends on the reader to try and place a monetary value on their lives, Hardin
simply presents a solid list of evidence that is based on logic and reason. Most of his evidence
revolves around the concept of the “Tragedy of the Commons,” an idea that states that if all the
resources in the world were available equally to all nations, humans would be able to practice
enough restraint so that each nation received their fair share. According to Hardin, the poor
nations would rush to grab as many resources as they could as soon as they could, seeing as how
“every human born constitutes a draft on all aspects of the environment” (457). Hardin is able to
use this view of the world, though it may seem harsh, because of his establishment of the lifeboat
metaphor – placing himself and the reader in the lifeboat, while the poor nations struggle to
survive. By combining this idea along with statistics concerning the population growth rate of
poor nations, Hardin is able to prove how the poor nations would constitute more of a drain on
the world’s resources simply because of their population size, not just because they would not be
able to practice enough restraint. Here, the reader is able to see how Hardin presented an idea of
his, realized that the reader may not agree, and then presented logical and factual evidence that
confirms his line of thinking, unlike Singer who continues to force-feed his ideas to the reader.
Works Cited
Hardin, Garrett. “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor.” The Anteater Reader,
edited by Ray B. Zimmerman and Carla Copenhaven. 7th Edition. Boston: Pearson
Custom Publishing, 2004. 452-460.
Singer, Peter. “The Singer Solution to Poverty.” The Anteater Reader, edited by Ray B.
Zimmerman and Carla Copenhaven. 7th Edition. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing,
2004. 439-444.
Durning, Alan. “Asking How Much is Enough.” The Anteater Reader, edited by Ray B.
Zimmerman and Carla Copenhaven. 7th Edition. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing,
2004. 461-469.
Alan Durning, who received his education at Oberlin College and Observatory and is currently a
full-time researcher for an environmental think tank called the Worldwatch Institute, claims in
his essay that the human race must find a balance between overconsumption and poverty.
Durning’s evidence ranges from statistics regarding the different wealth of generations to quotes
from various religions on the topic of consumption. Through his essay, Durning hopes to have
the human race find the balance he speaks of, or at least begin asking themselves if they are
consuming too much. His audience in this essay is both the wealthy nations and the nations in
poverty around the world, as both need to realize that they are both part of the cause of the
degradation of the world’s environment.
Hardin, Garrett. “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor.” The Anteater Reader,
edited by Ray B. Zimmerman and Carla Copenhaven. 7th Edition. Boston: Pearson
Custom Publishing, 2004. 452-460.
Garrett Hardin, the Professor Emeritus of Biology at UC Santa Barbara and best known for his
1968 essay, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” argues in his essay that in order to solve the
problem of poverty in the world, the rich and prosperous nations should not rush to donate their
resources to the poor, but instead allow Social Darwinism to come into play and let the world
right itself on its own. Hardin bases on his argument on a series of statistics, but more
specifically uses his lifeboat metaphor to help illustrate his case. In writing this essay, Hardin
hopes to help the world realize that it is all right to not help a nation who may be struggling
financially, and to instead let them find their own solution to the problem. His audience in this
essay is the wealthy nations of the world but more importantly, the liberals who may feel that it
is wrong to deny help to those who need it.
Singer, Peter. “The Singer Solution to Poverty.” The Anteater Reader, edited by Ray B.
Zimmerman and Carla Copenhaven. 7th Edition. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing,
2004. 439-444.
Peter Singer, the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human
Values at Princeton University, suggests in his essay that the wealthy nations of the world need
to cast aside the luxuries in their life and instead donate all that is not a necessity to the poor
nations of the world. Singer’s main basis for his argument are stories about a moral dilemma
dealing with a person’s life versus some form of a monetary prize, but most specifically from
Peter Unger’s book, Living High and Letting Die. By writing this essay, Singer hopes to help
the world realize how much money they waste on unnecessary indulgences when they could
easily be saving many lives of children by donating a fraction of what they normally spend.
Singer’s audience in this essay is all the wealthy nations of the world, however he is most
specifically speaking to the wealthy population in America.