Live Free and Starve/The Singer Solution to World Poverty

Let me start this off by saying that I read Live Free and Starve first, and went into The Singer Solution to World Poverty agreeing with the first article. However, upon delving into the second article, I was immediately bombarded with what seemed to me cries of how I'm a terrible person, etc. etc. Needless to say, my opinion on the second article sank rather low and barely lifted its head throughout the reading.

The first article, Live Free and Starve, was written by Chitra Divakaruni, an Indian woman who has seen first hand the effects of poverty on people. Her article discussed a bill to be passed by the House banning all imports of goods from factories that use child labor. She continues by explaining that despite the fact that these children are working in terrible and inhumane conditions, they do need this money to make ends meet in some fashion. Like, Singer, she does encourage donation to those stricken by poverty, though in a much less forceful way and for a different reason - she wants money to be sent towards providing education and healthcare for the children who are suddenly without any source of income, instead of letting them be free of abuse, but suddenly bogged down by the pressure of trying to stay alive. She says that 'It is easy for us in America to make the error of evaluating situations in the rest of the world as though they were happening in this country and propose solutions that make excellent sense - in the context of our society.' This just goes to show that we, as Americans, and generally unknowing of the consequences of ending the inhumane practice of child labor, don't necessarily take into account the repercussions of our actions in terms of other cultures. It is a selfless gesture, one could say, but at the same time, Americans as a whole are thinking only of their own society when it comes to this particular bill.

The second article, titled The Singer Solution to World Poverty, is a rather conceitedly named article discussing, obviously, the author's 'solution' to world poverty. He argues, essentially, that Americans simply squander their money on frivolous luxuries, when studies have shown that $200 can help a 'sickly two-year-old transform into a healthy six-year-old', and practically orders the reader to donate that money as soon as possible, even going so far as to make the claim that 'In the light of this conclusion, I trust that many readers will reach for the phone and donate that $200. Perhaps you should do it before reading further.' While I do understand his point of view, that those of us in first-world-countries certainly do have a lot of disposable income that could go towards providing for those who are much less fortunate than us, simply the way his article is presented and how he phrases everything is what makes the reading, as a whole, undesirable. His intentions are good, but when it comes to the practicality of it all, Singer falls short. Not many Americans are willing to give away their money, even if for a good cause. After all, his order that 'Whatever money you are spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away,' can be disputed. That $600 laptop someone buys enables them to gather information about the world around them, and learn about all the strife going on in less-developed nations, and ways to aid them that aren't just buying them food.

Prior to reading these articles, I can't exactly say that I had any sort of bias. I was, admittedly, ignorant on what exactly 'ending child labor' would result in - Divakaruni educated me on that, helping me realize that simply removing children from such horrible conditions isn't enough, that money should go into preventing those children from being a financial burden on their already troubled family. This, to me, is a much more powerful argument than Singer's constant cries of heartlessness and wastefulness, which is more of a deterrent to what he's saying than anything. All in all, Divakaruni's article is the one that I much prefer and agree with. Her argument is simply presented in a much more understandable, educational, and academic way, as compared to Singer's seemingly radical, aggressive article full of statistics and emotional manipulation.