Singer Naive?

                Connor Newlin

Singer presents an interesting argument because he makes his word sound irrefutable. I believe people are basically good deep down and want help others, but the practicality of assisting people in need at all times by giving away everything you have to a point that you can simply get by does not seem like a legitimate option to me. Singer said “If it is within our power to prevent something bad without suffering anything of comparable moral significance than we morally ought to do it.” (231) If we spend money on those in need to a point that we just have enough to sustain ourselves, then when an emergency occurs within our own domain we won’t have the resources to combat it. The world simply has more problems than there is money to solve all of them. Singer implies that he wishes for equal distribution of money in my eyes and this eludes to ideas of communism which is a whole debate topic in and of itself but I personally view communism as a flawed system that cannot work and even if it did it would be highly criticized. My stance may seem like that of a cold hearted individual who will turn his back on those in need but it is far from it; I am simply trying to think rationally and realistically about these types of situations. Everyone wants to help out someone in a trying situation but the fact the remains that human problems are infinite while money is not. Now one may argue that old fashioned hands on mission trips are the best route to assist people in need and they work very well but to continually do this one sacrifices a lot of time that they could be spending at home making money so they are putting themselves at risk if missions trips become too frequent.  Singers work was very thought provoking and inspires us to help those in need but if it is to the extreme that he implies, we will not be able to function as we want to in the real world.