In nature, people have always found ways to separate themselves and others based on physical, geographic, mental, economic, social or religious. From the earliest days, it was survival of the fittest. People are separated from their countries and the economic situations of those countries; some are progressive and advanced, while others suffer in terrible conditions and go hungry. Approximately 360,000 births and 151,600 deaths occur every day in our world to maintain the balance of nature, and 29,000 of these deaths involve children (Population Reference Bureau). In the essay “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Peter Singer provides a solution to save children's lives, but turns the idea of ​​giving into a moral obligation that requires intense commitment. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayIn his essay "The Singer Solution to World Poverty," Peter Singer argues that if you don't donate money, you are a complicit individual who chooses to allow children to die. Children are dying because of the difficult political and economic situation in some countries, the lack of food, resources and rights, and this is not the fault of the average American. Yes, you can donate money in the hope of preventing death, but there is no guarantee that the donated money will reach the child, much less save his or her life. Singer defines himself as “one who judges whether acts are right or wrong based on their consequences” (2), implying that ends are more important than means. Therefore, unless a person physically cares for a dying child, there is no way to know whether he or she has saved a life and fulfilled his or her ethical obligation. By arguing that individuals should donate money, Singer contradicts himself because a donation is a simple means of escaping the guilt that Singer imposes on his reader, without actually achieving the goal he claims: saving a life. there is no escaping the conclusion that each of us with a surplus of wealth over our essential needs should give most of it to help people suffering from poverty so severe that it is life-threatening” (Singer 4). Why does a middle-class man who risks his health every day on a construction site sacrifice most of his earnings for a child he has never even seen Sacrificing his own life, to some extent, to help someone else is there? ethical thing to do? No. It is not selfish, nor complicit, to choose between two lives and one of them is yours development. The $200 that could be given is actually worth more because the person gave up their time and health to get that money, essentially giving it a greater value. Therefore, if the child's life is priced at $200 , but the $200 donated is worth more than it is, then the child's life does not justify the donation. If a person gives their time or personally invests money in the dying child, it would lead to a life actually saved, justifying the time and effort, versus a donation that would essentially accomplish nothing." Again, the formula is simple: all the money you spend on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away" (Singer 4). Luxury goods give people pleasure, unlike donated money which does not guarantee a saved life, and therefore does not guarantee pleasure. Scientific research has shown that pleasure is necessary for survival. According to the Berkshire Research Group, the stimulation of pleasure and.