Sure you spend it on the few necessities such as water, food, shelter, clothes, etc. But what do you spend the rest of it on? What if you were to… give it away? According to Peter Singer in “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” those of us who have the extra cash should be giving it up to organizations such as UNICEF or Oxfam America in order to better provide for those who suffer from the lack of basic necessities. There are, of course, two sides to this issue. Pro’s say: “Yeah! Let’s feed the world! Go for it!”; Con’s say: “Our economy is failing as it is!”. Although it is a wonderful idea to sacrifice our luxury for the life of others, the truth of the matter is that the more persuasive argument is that of not sacrificing anything.
Before we can do anything further with this analysis of Singer’s resolution, we must first set limitations. We must first define the words necessity, and luxury. So what is a necessity? Something that keeps you well and alive, right? Anything that would help support your way of life. Like maybe a car. But why a car as a necessity? Well, cars (so long as they are not purchased in excess) help us to get from place to place. They help us to get to work which helps us so that we may continue to support ourselves with the basic needs. There is a fine line between a basic need and just a necessity. Our basic needs are our physical requirements. The things that keep our bodies functioning properly. Necessities are those things that help us to get those things. A car is (possibly, and depending on the person and situation) one of those necessities. So what is a luxury? A luxury is something that you don’t need. Such as a $100,000 car! But not everyone has a car that expensive, so maybe we can apply luxury somewhere else? How about surgical enhancements, or all those movies that you rent. How about all the time and money and effort you put into video games? What about that huge Jacuzzi you recently installed on the oak porch in the back? Do you really need all that? Does it determine life and death? Does it truly determine whether or not your happy? Or should it just be your good health, family, friends, etc that offer that to you?
So as a surgeon, what are the arguments to be made? If you’re a brain surgeon, you’re obviously working a job of necessity. One of those jobs that man-kind possibly couldn’t go without, for it saves peoples’ lives. But what if you’re a Plastic Surgeon? What if you’re the one doing those surgical enhancements? What if you’re the one giving the nose jobs? Is that a necessity? Or is that a luxury? And lets say that the world decides to follow the Singer Solution. All the prosperous people are donating their extra money to charities to help provide for the less fortunate. No one is spending money on getting that nose job, or the body enhancement. They have been “enlightened” and no longer see it as being a necessity. You loose your job. What happens? You go bankrupt, you end up having to live off the streets, and you become one of the people being supported by donations. Because of the Singer solution, you just became a major player on the receiving end.
Economy. The realism behind the cons of this argument, is economy and the potential to increase the number of people dependent on that “well-fare” provided by the prosperous. Now ideally, no one would loose their jobs and everyone would help to give to those who need it most and those who were once poor, would rise from that poverty and build for themselves a place to stand. A stronghold. A home. They would find a job and begin supporting themselves on their own. Live the luxurious life for a few years, and then begin to support others. Thus a chain begins, people helping people who help people and eventually poverty is “gone”. Ideally. But in terms of realism and what is most likely to happen, people would begin to loose their jobs because of supply and demand. Because no one would be purchasing for luxury, all things categorized as luxury would be avoided, thus leaving them on shelves to collect dust. Companies would have to cease the production of such items and those who made them would be out a job. Unfortunately, many things we purchase are for luxury, and so with the Singer solution, more and more people would loose their jobs, creating less and less work openings, throwing more and more people into bankruptcy and into the streets. Ultimately, you would be supporting more people than you started with, and that’s if you could even acquire enough money to continue support for people. Eventually someone will have to go hungry.
To receive a gift is a beautiful thing, is it not? Especially when it’s something you really need. So what are the emotions and feelings that come with receiving something like all your basic needs for free? What does it feel like to have everything provided for you? Would that make you want to work? Would having things given to you make you want to get up and change the way you live? Or would you be of the mind to continue as you have, and continue receiving things for free? And then you have those hard workers who do nothing but work for what they have. And the little extra cash they get, they celebrate with. Who would be inclined to give away the money they spent forty-hours a week to earn? What would encourage them to do so? Wouldn’t people be more inclined to maintain their current way of life than to give it all up for the sake of others?
There are always going to be benefits and detriments to anything in life. And although the pros are all really great and seemingly outweigh the cons, the cons are more realistic. Would you willingly give up every luxury you now have, to support someone else with the basic necessities of life? After having known the lifestyle of luxury could you possibly live without it now? Or are you forever tainted by the corruption of luxury? Forever desiring of the “happiness” inspired by it? Isn’t that argument more convincing? Isn’t that life style more comfortable and convenient? You’re a surgeon averaging anywhere from $200,000 to $400,000 dollars a year; What do you spend it on?
