Singer's "Solution" to Global Poverty?

Peter Singer argues that certain moral considerations provide powerful reasons for thinking that affluent people should give away a lot of their money (I mean, a lot!) to aid those living in poverty. In his own words:

I can see no escape from the conclusion that each one of us with wealth surplus to his or her essential needs should be giving most of it to help people suffering from poverty so dire as to be life-threatening. That's right: I'm saying that you shouldn't buy that new car, take that cruise, redecorate the house or get that pricey new suit. After all, a $1,000 suit could save five children's lives...[T]he formula is simple: whatever money you're spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away.

You can find the details of his argument summarized here. His argument turns on the following principle:

• If it is in our power to prevent something very bad happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, we ought to do it [1].

Singer thinks this principle is supported by ordinary intuitions about life threatening situations. Consider his famous pond analogy. Imagine you're walking by a pond and hear a small child calling out for help. She's in the pond and is going to drown, unless you save her. However, you know that if you save her you'll soil your new outfit, possibly ruining it entirely. Does the threat of a lost wardrobe item justify you in walking by? Intuitively, no. You morally ought to jump in and save her. To do otherwise would be highly immoral. But what if saving the child meant you had to sacrifice your second car, a new and fancy house, your dinner outing for the night, and so on? Singer thinks that none of these things justify letting the child die. They are not of comparable moral significance. By parity of reasoning, then, you ought to sacrifice the above luxuries to save those living in poverty who, as a result of their poverty, face certain death. They are like the drowning child in the pond analogy, and since you think you ought to sacrifice on the child's behalf, you ought to sacrifice on their behalf.

Singer's argument his been widely criticized. Here's a preview of the criticisms:

• Singer assumes that rights to one's possessions, to be good care takers of one's family, obligations to one's immediate community and the right to pursue one's own ends, are not morally significant in determining the extent of one's obligations to help others. We have a variety of obligations and rights (and gradations among those obligations/rights), not just the obligation to save those in need, and, hence, it is not obvious that all of those other obligations/rights are entirely outweighed by the obligation to send aid (John Arthur, Violetta Igneski).
• Singer assumes we have positive duties (duties to help those we haven't harmed) when, in fact, we only have negative duties (duties to help those we've harmed) (the libertarian response).
• The pond analogy is not analogous to the situation of global poverty. It neglects the relevance of social and political structures, it concerns only one child, rather than a vast number of people, it suggests that the problem can be solved by throwing money at poverty, etc. (Scott Wisor).
• The argument neglects the fact that our responsibility to aid should be distributed equally among those who are well off, so that the affluent only have to contribute their fair share (Liam Murphy).
• Following Singer's argument would result in the depletion of the world's resources and make the world a worse place in the long run (Garett Harding).