Today, many families across the globe continue living below the poverty line and cannot meet their basic needs like food, health, or even sleep. At the same time, millions of people may be defined as rich. They spend money on luxuries and do not find it necessary to share or help other individuals. Charity organizations like the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund, the American Red Cross, and United Way create donorship, employment, and stability conditions. Although their contributions are recognizable and helpful, their activities are not enough to end global poverty. Thus, offering luxury money to charity has become a trend associated with multiple controversies. One of Singer’s characters, Bob, proves that personal benefits and financial stability may be more important than the readiness to scarify someone’s life. Still, I think there is a great moral difference between the decision not to give money to charity and Bob’s preference to save his car, not the child. Such issues as the current moment, clarity of choices, and inevitable evidence can be used to explain the instability of the moral line between what Bob and I did or did not do.
Giving money to charity seems to be a good idea, but when a person wants to clarify the conditions of this activity, many concerns and misunderstandings emerge regarding a final destination. According to Singer, practical uncertainties cannot be ignored because charitable donors do not have much information about if their aid reaches the people in need. It is hard to predict if all organizations follow fair and honest policies. In addition, much information remains unclear if charity money is divided between people and if they are enough to cover basic needs. In Bob’s case, his charitable decision would immediately affect and literary save human life. This difference explains why my decision not to give some luxury money to charity is not as morally wrong and unacceptable as Bob’s situation due to the moment of action and clarity of outcomes.
Another important aspect of charity and immediate property sacrifice is evidence and expected material and spiritual values. When I decide to donate some money, I want to believe that it would help a person or a group of people improve life quality. However, I do not observe the results of my aid, and everything I can is to believe that my decision would be helpful. I face some material loss, obtain some spiritual satisfaction, and no evidence of real benefits. Bob faced another situation: he could lose his car, but the awareness that he saved a child would be of great moral satisfaction with strong evidence. Not saving a child for personal financial benefit seems amoral and might affect the man’s mental health with time.
In general, when basic human needs are met and some luxury money is present, thoughts about spending them on charity emerge. On the one hand, it is normal for people with extra money to offer them to those who actually need material help. Poverty is a public problem, and its solution is determined by human decisions and cooperation. On the other hand, each person is responsible for his/her life and does not expect that someone could help. Therefore, charity should be voluntary and free from moral obligations and burdens. Bob’s situation has nothing in common with charity because of the moment, the immediate impact on human life, and the clarity of events. It is impossible for even the most professional organizations to control donation outcomes and charity processes fairly, which explains my unwillingness to donate my money. Bob’s choice was clear and definite, and his material preferences overcoming a living opportunity cannot be approved.
Work Cited
Singer, Peter. “The Singer Solution to World Poverty.” The New York Times Magazine, 1999.