In the article “The Singer Solution To World Poverty,” Peter Singer explains his view on how to end world hunger/poverty. He says the spare money you have as extra(Spent on luxuries) should be given away. I disagree with this statement. There are both pros and cons of his solution. Pros: It would help the poor and starving, and it’s also good to help others. It would be a good thing to do, but there are too many cons to the situation to me. Some people may like this idea, but others
Some of the cons of Singer’s solution are some people don’t want to give may not. Up all their extra money to someone else. Some people are also greedy, they’ll want to keep it all for themselves. Also, people who work for the money they use for whatever the desire, aren’t going to want to give that away. I find the side that saves your money more persuasive. It’s your money, if you don’t want to give that away, you shouldn’t have to. If you work for your money, then you should be able to pep it and spend it on any “luxuries” you so choose.
You shouldn’t have that taken from you. It is more persuasive to me because I don’t want my money snatched and given away. If I decide to give to charity, that should be my decision, not a requirement. My outlook on Singer’s solution is that it’s your money, It should be your choice. You shouldn’t have to give it away If you don’t want to. It would have positive outcomes, but there’s too many negatives to the situation tot aka all of people’s money.