Singer is right to complain about the amount of foreign aid the U.S. gives on an annual basis. It is not just nor good that the U.S. gives only .10 percent of its GNP in aid and only .14 percent of GNP when counting private donations as well. According to Singer the United States fails miserably at reaching the UN target for international aid to developing nations, and in fact the United States gives about $3.5 billion less than Japan whose economy is roughly half the size of the United States.
I agree that the United States should give more and maybe they don't because of the misperception of international aid by the American public. The American public, in a Program on International Policy Attitudes survey, believes that the United States spends 15% of its federal budget on foreign aid when in fact it spends less than 1 %. Most Americans also believe that the acceptable level for foreign aid is 5% of the federal budget. That increase in federal foreign aid could be put to good use as $17 will provide immunization to protect a child's life against six leading diseases; and $25 dollars will provide "over 400 packets of oral rehydration salts to help save the lives of children suffering from diarrhea dehydration."
All this is good and I would encourage the United States and its citizens to increase its foreign aid. However, Singer's argument about individuals needing to give globally rather then domestically is just plain wrong. Individuals are selfish in the sense that they get what economists call "utility" from donations/service to charitable organizations. Individuals are more likely to give to a certain cause when they can observe the results. Therefore it is less likely for an individual to want to give to a charity that supports African poverty when they are concerned that the money might not reach its target and will not have the impact they desire. Charity is charity and each and every charity needs help. Singer should not be so picky in saying that citizens of the world need to focus on those that benefit the most. Lou Holtz, former college football coach, use to tell his players that the only rule on his team was to, "do right." If we all do our best to "do right" and help those we feel need helping when we are able to help them then eventually we can make a significant dent into poverty.
1 comment:
I see your point from a practical stand point--people are more likely to give where they can see the evidence of their actions close by or feel the "glow" of charitable giving, as you said in class yesterday.
I think Singer and others (such as Thomas Pogge) have a valid moral point, however. Pogge argues that citizens of the developed nations actually have a negative duty to aid the developing world because we prop up an institutional order that actually harms the global poor (one would have to be convinced of this.) The argument is not whether we should chose between aiding domestically or internationally, but that we must stop hurting the global poor. Pogge calls for a complete overhaul of the institutional order, which is pretty intense and I'm pretty sure you would disagree with that.
Post a Comment