Monday, September 04, 2006
Morally sound, but unrealistic.
Singer argues that we ought to give away any money that is unnecessary for meeting our needs, and that not doing so is wrong. However, it goes against the way people want to live their lives, and our wants are what drive us forward in life. It is not plausible believe that Americans would live their lives solely to relieve the suffering of others, because now the people live their lives climbing a social ladder while earning enough to afford a few (or a large amount) of luxuries.
I am in no way saying that we should be leaving those in need with no assistance at all; however, while I would probably give away a portion of my earnings to others, I am unwilling to give up everything I want in life in order to save others. This is something that Singer does not address, because he believes his argument is morally sound, truthful, and valid, but this does not mean we will all change our lives to fit his moral principle because we value other aspects of our lives as well. This could be viewed as a slippery-slope because one might ask, ‘if killing others is fun, would that outweigh the moral benefits of not-killing to make life worth living?’ So, while I do not think there should be a specific value set on how much we should have to give or not give (which for Singer is an unrealistic amount for the common person), I think we should try not to be too superfluous with spending money on our wants, but that we should not feel obligated to give almost everything we earn to someone else.
