Review of Peter Singer’s Article, "Heartwarming Causes Are Nice, But Let's Give to Charity with Our Heads"

Short Essay Response #1

Peter Singer’s “Heartwarming causes are nice, but let’s give to charity with our heads” is an article requesting that people give to charities that assist the most disadvantaged people of the world. Singer also believes that the most worthwhile way to spend charity money is to save, or at least help, the lives of many. The author begins with a popular news story of the Make-A-Wish Foundation granting the fantasy of being BatKid to a young boy who is diagnosed with leukemia. While Singer admits that he is touched by this act of kindness, he argues that the money bestowed by the Make-A-Wish Foundation is used in an irresponsible way. Singer suggests that charitable acts should be turned towards developing countries, where donated money will be more valuable to people in need of financial assistance.

Singer clearly did research, shown through the many figures throughout the article. He provides readers with the amount of $7,500 for every Make-A-Wish fulfillment. It’s safe to say that spending that quantity to fulfill a childhood fantasy is not the most advantageous act, at least in terms of saving lives. Singer magnifies the irresponsibility of this amount by providing alternatives that require much less money, but save many more lives. The numbers start small enough for his readers to wrap their heads around, but they gradually increase. For example, Singer proclaims that instead of using that same amount of money that made a child become his favorite fictional character for a day, the Against Malaria Foundation could have saved the lives of two or three children while the Seva Foundation could have prevented 100 children from losing their ability to see. When Singer presents these other branches of charity, the Make-A-Wish Foundation seems like an ineffective organization.

Singer’s understanding and reasonable attitude toward his subject of critique creates a strong sense of character for himself and makes his views easier to present to reluctant readers. Singer’s argument should be as clear as day to every American, and support should be easily acquired. However, Singer understands why people willingly donate to foundations such as Make-A-Wish. People are simply more inclined to be benevolent when they can clearly see progress and at the very least know the face of the person or people they are assisting. Everyone that has ever visited a grocery store has seen the little small containers that have the faces of children who are clearly in need of money or a surgical correction. These faces are not inconsequentially stamped onto these containers; they are meant to grab the attention of viewers who already have their wallets ready. This tactic is employed by numerous charity organizations because they know that sympathy can push people to take action. Humans are visual creatures, and our emotions are more viscerally responsive to images as opposed to numbers. In other words, when people see a picture of a malnurtured child that clearly needs to be fed, they respond with their hearts, not their heads.

Singer furthers his argument by stating that many Americans feel that they already give a generous amount of money to developing countries through their tax dollars, but most Americans lack the knowledge of actual contributions made by the United States. The numbers he provides that compare what Americans believe their nation gives abroad and the reality of the country’s financial donations is astonishing. Singer presses the fact that the lack of generosity by America’s federal government should be rectified by charitable actions of the American people. One of the most famous stereotypes of America is that it is a nation of ignorant people. Singer uses this commonly known weakness to leave readers feeling vulnerable and, perhaps, even ashamed by the inadequacy of donations made by the United States.

While Singer’s argument is reasonable and thoroughly logical, there are a number of unaddressed questions. He mentioned that people are unwilling to give to faceless campaigns, but fails to offer a solution to this pressing issue. Singer merely brings our attention to the illegitimacy of this psychological fabrication, then shifts to his next point of argument. How are American people supposed to deviate their charity money elsewhere if the author doesn’t offer an alternate way of viewing charities for developing countries? Singer ends his critique of our susceptibility to a visual cause rather than a case expressed numerically by saying, “It is not justification for ignoring the needs of distant strangers”. He does not challenge readers to equip themselves with a new disposition, he simply leaves his point to linger in the abyss of our wandering minds. This is a case of problem-no-solution, which can make an argument, like Singer’s, less effective.

Singer’s use of America’s federal budget to express the insufficient amount of aid to developing countries can raise complications as well. His numbers are from 2012, which is a year that the United States had still been striving to rehabilitate itself from The Great Recession. Singer compares the United States with other wealthy nations, saying that the other countries give more of their overall income than America does. However, in terms of the actual number of dollars, the United States contributes more than the countries Singer lists. According to nationalpriorities.org, the United States spends roughly $56 billion on foreign aid whereas Sweden, a country Singer mentioned, spends about $35.8 billion. Also, America has a much larger population than the other countries, which calls for more domestic financial support. Singer’s shift from hard numbers to percentages weakens his argument because it magnifies his bias position on the issue.

Singer’s article poses an adequate argument against illogical funding for charities and depends on readers to create solutions to the issues that he passionately targets. Perhaps leaving questions unanswered is a tactic that Singer employs and, therefore, cannot be recognized as a flaw in his claim, but an enhancement. Regardless of the holes in his argument, he presented a decent amount of logic for readers to be able to agree with him. He is also clearly engulfed in his own cause which creates a sense of passion that can be admired by many people, even if they are disinclined to his article. Overall, Singer expressed himself eloquently and offered reasonable evidence to form a strong argument.