Jeremy Hong Period 5 AP Lang 5 March 2013 Assessing the Validity of Singers Proposal The willingness to give to the

poor is a difficult attitude to promote. The problem is not just the capital, especially for the rich; for example, when taxes hit ninety-four percent (on all income over $200K), Americans had no Boston Tea Party (Mr. Feeney). On the contrary, the masses were largely satisfied with their lives even with the government thinning out people's wallets. By this logic, wouldn't Singer's solutiongiving money intended for luxuries to aid the less fortunatebe plausible? Absolutely not. When one considers taxes, necessity is implied; when one considers charity, optionality is implied. Therefore, Singer's concept requires the American, a particularly rich one, to be philanthropic and altruistic. While optimistic and ideal, Singer's proposal is simply too impractical and improbable in general terms. Ignoring the unlikelihood of the success of Singer's proposition, it has quite desirable outcomes that are agreeable with the majority. The phrase all men are created equal is not as much a natural law to Singer as it is the responsibility. To expand, Singer assumes that the positions in which people live are not at all equal, with some having greater fortune than others; he believes that it is the duty for the richer to eliminate status and poverty with monetary aids to the unfortunate, thereby forcing the world into his mold of equality. In addition, focusing more on the emotions of people, these donations could easily provide spiritual satisfaction or the simple pleasures in giving. The Golden Rule would not have existed if man did not have a glimmer of a sense for justice; obviously, the majority would want aid if they were dealt a bad hand. In fact, Singer's model flatters the human nature, as if it implies that people are inherently good, and therefore should be able to give up worldly possessions and desires for the good of others. If the world followed his solution and luxury money was diverted to charity, freedom from the distractions of consumerism and the achievement of the long-pursued equality would amount to a utopia. However, history proves that such a utopia is impossible to form because man is imperfect: something imperfect cannot create something perfect. The Soviet Union had the intentions of being the utopian society of peace, land, bread (Lenin), but was far from such a system, with the masses strictly involved in labor and an

elite feeding off of their misery. Because Singer's solution has a dependency on the morals of men, it would most likely not succeed. It is far too romantic, optimistic, and overvaluing to be realistic and is therefore an illogical proposal. William Golding was quite accurate in his depiction of human nature in Lord of the Flies: man is instinctively selfish. Buddhism essentially labels anything and everything worldly desires, and people have not been able to let go of such inclinations since Adam and Eve ate the fruit to learn about worldly desires. Greed is prevalent throughout history and transcends time, thereby hindering people of the charity that Singer so strongly advocates. Humoring Singer by assuming that his plan is a complete success, who's to say that the impoverished who are supported by the philanthropy of those in possession of greater wealth would not develop a dependency on this system. Are the rich forever damned to earn their wealth solely to support the poor? Imagine the gap of wealth between the warring classes of the social hierarchy dissipating with a new age of philanthropists spending money on the poor rather than consumerism. This is the perfect utopia, is it not? Yet, there is an evident void and a general lack of such a trend. Consider the following. About eight percent of Americans are unemployed. Nine percent of Americans are employed directly in manufacturing industries, which mainly applies to consumer goods. An additional eight percent are employed by the government, and a minimal two percent involved in agriculture. It is probably a conservative assumption to sum up those involved in providing necessities (beyond the government and agriculture related jobs) to another ten percent so that nonconsumer related occupations can be estimated to make up for twenty percent of the population. This leaves the majority of those employed engaged in occupations involved with the luxuries Singer indicates (at a hefty sixtythree percent): restaurants, entertainment, sports, technology, etc. If consumerism collapses, the already unemployed eight percent hops up to seventy-one percent, leaving behind an incredible amount of work to be filled. Can Singer's ideal philanthropists fill this void that consumerism leaves?