Every day, Americans spend their hard-earned money on material things that satisfy a need or provide some form of gratification or pleasure. Should an individual feel remorse purchasing such items daily knowing that those few dollars saved can save a child in need? In The Singer Solution to World Poverty, Peter Singer passionately argues that all Americans, especially those who spend lavishly, should donate a significant portion of their income to charity. Although Singer presents an intelligent, honorable, and persuasive argument, his intentional use of the devices of morality and human instinct to persuade the reader to the “right” act of giving to solve world poverty is flawed and nonsensical. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Singer's essay makes strong arguments that human beings possess an innate and natural tendency towards kindness towards their fellow humans. People should think twice when buying expensive clothes, cars or bags. Are humans inherently selfish? Do we purchase such luxuries in life because we deserve such items for happiness? How about the happiness of the poor who have neither food nor shelter? Singer claims that money spent on such luxuries can be better spent on providing help to a poor child, which in turn will provide true happiness. Man's basic instinct to help the less fortunate in society is evident in the popularity and wide acceptance of acts of kindness seen in social media today. In addition to the moral aspect of giving, kindness also conveys a deep sense of satisfaction and gratification. According to Singer's thesis, wouldn't a few dollars donated to feed a hungry child be more rewarding in the long run than purchasing an expensive item that can only provide temporary pleasure or gratification? Giving up the luxuries of life is a simple task in which every individual can and should actively participate. Singer provides the reader with a well-constructed argument for addressing the importance of giving and ending world poverty, but he certainly fails to take into consideration the many complexities of human nature. While man possesses many inherent positive “moral” attributes, he also has inherent character flaws that in many cases will hinder the acts of kindness that should prevail in the idealistic world. We live in a society focused on the needs and desires of the “me only”, survival of the fittest mentality. In our fast-paced, complicated and competitive society, the needs of our closest relatives are our top priority. In most families, meeting our family's financial needs outweighs the needs of others. Sacrificing and donating money to a global humanitarian organization can lead to unwanted results for a man and his family. Isn't the happiness you get from providing for your family important? Singer's argument is also flawed in that it emphasizes the fact that it should be acceptable for people to donate according to their means. It should not indicate a specific dollar amount that is expected of an individual. If a poor working class family donates less than $200.00, that should be acceptable and not questioned or ridiculed. For example, a middle-class working couple with two teenagers and elderly parents living in a single household, paying a monthly mortgage of $3,500 along with other monthly expenses will compromise their ability to meet their expenses if they are forced to donate to.