In nature, people have always found ways to separate themselves and others based on physical, geographic, mental, economic, social or religious. Since the beginning, there has been survival of the fittest. People are separated by their countries and by the economic situation of those countries; some progressive and advanced, while others suffer in terrible conditions and starvation. There are approximately 360,000 births and 151,600 deaths every day in our world to maintain the balance of nature, and 29,000 of these deaths are children (Population Reference Bureau). In the essay “The Singer Solution to Global Poverty,” Peter Singer proposes a solution to save children's lives, but he transforms 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 Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay In his essay “The Singer Solution to Global Poverty,” Peter Singer argues that if you don't give money, you are a complicit individual who chooses to let the children die. Children are dying because of poor political and economic conditions in some countries, lack of food, lack of resources, and lack of rights, and it is not the fault of the average American. Yes, one can give money in the hope of avoiding death, but there is no guarantee that the money given will reach the child, much less save their life. Singer defines himself as “one who judges whether actions are good or bad by their consequences” (2), which implies that the end is more important than the means. Therefore, unless a person physically cares for a dying child, there is no way of knowing whether they have saved a life and fulfilled their ethical obligation. By asserting that individuals must donate money, Singer contradicts himself because a donation is a simple means of escaping the guilt that Singer imposes on his reader, without achieving the objectives he defends: saving a life. There is no escaping the conclusion that each of us who has a surplus of wealth over our basic needs should devote most of it to helping people suffering from poverty so severe that it threatens their lives in danger” (Singer 4). Why must a middle-class man who risks his health every day on a construction site sacrifice most of his income for a child he has never seen? Is sacrificing your own life, to some extent, to help someone else an ethical thing to do? No. It is neither selfish nor complicit to choose yourself when you have to choose between two lives and one of them is yours. The essay mentions that $200 is an amount that can save a child's life in a developing world. The $200 one could give is actually worth more because the person sacrificed time and health to get that money, essentially making it worth more. Therefore, if the child's life costs $200, but the $200 donated is worth more than it is, then the child's life does not justify the donation. If a person dedicated their time or personally invested money in the dying child, it would lead to an actual life saved, justifying the time and effort, as opposed to a donation which would essentially lead nowhere. “Again, the formula is simple: all the money you spend on luxuries, not basic necessities, should be donated” (Singer 4). Luxury gives pleasure to people, unlike money given which does not guarantee a life saved, and therefore does not guarantee.