For by spending it on luxury, he chiefly injures himself and his immediate circle, but by spending it in charity he inflicts a graver injury upon society.’ (BBC, 2014)
For example, children, living in Africa on south of the Sahara, suffer from a lack of clean and fresh drinking water. This problem is known to the whole world, so it cannot be ignored. The PlayPump organization began to solve the problem with the lack of clean water by setting tanks filled with water on the problem areas. Since 2006, the donations from well-known and wealthy people surged with great force, but by 2007 it was clear that the plans are not met. In todays time, the rich and the government claim that the donations are not gifts, they are investments. (Hobbes, M., 17 Nov, 2014)
The article of Peter Singer called ‘The Singer Solution to World Poverty’, which published in The New York Times in 1999, is perfectly suited to address the urgent problem. Of course, the Australian philosopher can not affect on the fact that people do not engaged in donations for the benefit of the starving and dying. He cannot explain why some Americans can afford not to engage in donations. Many will say that the problem with charity is not so important, but it can serve as a basis in the course of solving the problem of world poverty. Peter Singer believes that we can help needy, if we sacrifice the luxury that is not so important in our lives. We have to prevent something bad, if we have such an opportunity.
To support his argument and persuasion readers, Singer creates two situations in his article. They are quite convincing, but at the end of the article the arguments and the situations, given in the work, lose their power. It seems that the philosopher overdo with his opinion to convince readers to donate every penny from their pocket money.
Pay attention to the situations that given in the article. The first situation derived from the Brazilian film.