OPPapers.com

Singer

Giving to charity is certainly a noble cause.   This is especially true following a natural disaster or another sort of tragedy.   However Singer advocates near endless giving without any extreme circumstances to encourage such a level of giving.   While there is little question that there are many, many people who are in appalling conditions, how many of them can we raise up before we ourselves are too low to be able to accomplish what is necessary for us to do to continue to aid the world.
When Singer writes that people should give as much as possible, even to the point of marginal utility his claim is brought down due to the sheer naivity of the concept.   We as people are naturally greedy and as it is are not likely to part with many of our hand earned green-backs, no less as many as Singer urges.   With that established we also need to consider that people are far more likely to donate to something or someone that they will be able to see the benefit from.   These obstacles considered it is now time to determine whether or not this concept will yield the results it hopes for or even if it’s morally acceptable.  
With the idea that people give to the point of marginal utility there is a difficulty that you encounter trying to defend it.   That being that for many of these decimated regions there are reasons that they are so very, very poor.   That reason being that they are so harsh that no real amount of aid will be able to raise the standard of living enough so that it will be comparable to that of even moderately sophisticated countries.   These particular regions can be considered sink-holes of sorts for our financial aid money.   With these sink-holes it will nearly be impossible to raise the standard of living in most places at all.   These sink-holes make it possible for us to pour tons and tons of money into this places, so much that the world would have to be at a nearly stone age level in order to achieve marginal utility.
Another flaw arises when we...