Bioethicist Peter Singer’s arguments strongly suggesting – nay, morally requiring - poverty-relief donations for affluent individuals are potent enough that they may make even old Ebenezer Scrooge open his change purse (and without the aid of any ghostly acquaintances). In one of his more notable examples, Singer envisions a scenario where one stumbles upon a child drowning in a nearby creek that they could easily save. If we were that person seeing that desperate, immediate need, wouldn’t it be morally repugnant to ignore that child and continue on our way? Singer equates this hypothetical child to a real-life youth under the waves of the crushing toll of global poverty – everywhere around the world, particularly in third-world countries, there are children drowning in poverty whose lives are at stake this very moment. Singer would urge all of us that we…show more content… I absolutely think it is very important to consider weighing the affluence of our lives with the desperate need of others. And certainly, every little bit helps. As Sean Conley, research analyst at GiveWell says, “On an intuitive level, giving people additional money who are among the poorest in the world — even small amounts of money — will make a big difference in their lives.” I don’t want to abandon the idea of helping altogether just because I don’t think I can really make a huge difference. I don’t want to throw my hands up and say, “Well, it costs over $3,000 to save a life and I don’t have anywhere near that much to give, so I shouldn’t give anything at all.” And Singer’s arguments as well that I mentioned are very convincing. The larger point that I am only beginning to get at is that world poverty is an extraordinarily complex problem and I don’t think it is simply a matter of throwing as much money at it as possible as Singer deems
