In Peter Singer’s article “The Singer Solution to world poverty”, he states that “In the end what is the ethical distinction between a brazilin who sells a homeless child to organ peddlers and an American who already has a TV and upgrades to a better one knowing that money could be donated to an organization that would use it to save the lives of kids in need?

          Peter Singer tells us about a woman name Dora and man name Bob. In his stories he leads us to question rather of not if we should donate $200 to our children of the world that need it. He believes we have opportunities to save the lives of children out of poverty. He portrays that we all are in the situation to make a decision to sacrifice our savings to help these children out.

          In response to Singer’s article writer Greg Schaefer, wrote “Singers not so persuasive solution to world poverty”. He says that “Singers solution to world poverty argues that there is no reason why Americans who could afford to does not donate to the needy”. He feels that singer can not force anyone to donate so instead he writes to hypothetical situations to persuade us to donate.

          He states “We are like Bob on that we have a choice on whether or not to divert the train”. He feels that while two hundred dollars is not a lot of money, but if it really could save a child’s life then yes, we should want to donate it.

          In a sense I would have to say I feel the same way. If I knew that $200 would save a child’s life and I had it to give, yes I would give it. I think it would be on my conscience if I knew a child had died because I did not give.