How to End Global Poverty: A Philosopher’s Solution

Despite a landmark year in philanthropy, Americans are not nearly as generous as they can be, argues Peter Singer, a Princeton University professor of bioethics, in the cover article of The New York Times Magazine.

If Americans accept the idea that all human lives have equal value and that philanthropy is a way to shore up inequities, Mr. Singer writes, “we are very far from acting in accordance with that belief.”

As one measure, he looked at the goals outlined by the United Nations Millennium Summit in 2000, which would cut poverty in half, and concluded that if wealthy people worldwide stepped up their giving to antipoverty groups, then nobody would have to be poor.

For example, Mr. Singer calculates that the top 0.1 percent of American taxpayers, who earn an average of $12,775,000, could easily give one-third of their incomes and not see their standard of living change much. If each person donated that sum, it would total $61-billion per year.

If the top 10 percent of earners made that donation, it would provide more than $400-billion annually, he notes.

“The target we should be setting for ourselves is not halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty, and without enough to eat, but ensuring that no one, or virtually no one, needs to live in such degrading conditions. That is a worthy goal, and it is well within our reach.”