It is a widely-known fact that there are people around the world who do not get enough food and medicine to live comfortably, and sometimes, to survive. This is a tragic feature of our world, and these people can obviously use as much money and help as they can get. While Singer’s solution would offer millions – maybe billions – of dollars to charity organizations that purchase food and medicine for underprivileged parts of the planet, prosperous people should not have to give up their luxuries: in most cases, these citizens have earned their money through hard work, and donations are already widely received from wealthy people.
In Africa, Asia, South America, and all other parts of the world, there are people who starve and die from horrendous diseases daily. It is awful to think that there are children out there who will not live to see tomorrow because they cannot afford even a slice of bread. On the other hand, many Americans consume numerous slices of bread daily. Singer’s solution to world poverty calls for his simple formula, which states: “whatever money you’re spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away.” But as sad as these poverty-stricken populations are, there should be no requirement for wealthy people to give up life’s luxuries to save these children and others. Though it is certainly an honorable thing to do, it should be a decision made, not an obligation.
Most of the time, people who have spare money for ‘luxuries’ – boats, plasma-screen TVs, large houses, nice cars – are those who have worked hard to obtain such things. In America, the land of opportunity, even the poorest citizens are given the chance to climb the ladder of success and achieve wealth. Admittedly, there are some born into prosperity, such as the children of the Walton’s, who own the world’s largest corporation – Walmart. These children will probably never have to work a day in their lives. But, they are the exception to the rule, and there is no reason to take away luxuries that come with wealth. If these luxuries were taken away, what incentive would there be to work hard in society? Work hard and become prosperous so that your extra money can be taken and given to poor folks in Nicaragua? Most people who are wealthy have achieved this status by hard work and taking away luxuries would violate the very value and virtues of American democracy.
Not to mention the fact that most prosperous people do donate to charity in the form of large contributions, and therefore forcing these people to donate would be overkill. J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter series, wrote a children’s storybook to be sold with all net profits going to a charity called Children’s High Level Group. CHLG works at a political and practical level to ensure that UN minimum standards for the care of children are implemented across the whole of Europe and beyond. Others, such as Bill Gates and Oprah Winfrey, donate in vast amounts as well. However, forcing people with extra money to donate, when most already do, would breed bad sentiment and hard feelings. People typically feel good when donating to charity, and being forced to do so would eliminate any such feelings. Singer’s solution would force people to give up money, although many already donate generously, abandoning luxuries and thus violating our democratic ideals. Charity should be a choice.
While Singer’s solution would help even more people around the world in need of aid, prosperous people should not be forced to give up money they would otherwise spend on luxuries: usually people have worked hard for their money and wealth, and donations are already widely given. Beyond the benefit or loss of individuals both wealth-ridden or poverty-stricken, forcing any group of people to give up things which they had rightfully earned violates democratic values.
Revision Analysis
My weakest point in this latest essay was my fourth paragraph, which lacked important ties to my central claim. To improve this, I added connective tissue in the form of sentences like, “However, forcing people with extra money to donate, when most already do, would breed bad sentiment and hard feelings.” These added statements tied together my main point. Also, I eliminated some repetition throughout my paper, making it more reader-friendly and I solidified my supporting details by adding concrete names. In my third paragraph, for example, I gave the actual name of the owners of Walmart, and in my fourth paragraph, I gave the name of J.K. Rowling’s charity. Overall, I was pleased with my performance on this essay and I feel my revisions effectively improved its overall quality.
