This essay scored an 8 of 9 on the 2005 AP English Language and Composition exam. In the article “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, Peter Singer proposes a plan that could rejuvenate the story of Robin Hood. Although not exactly stealing from the rich, although close, his plan redistributes wealth from the rich to the poor. There is a global problem with poverty and disease, acknowledged by almost everyone in the world. There is no question that something must be done about this problem. But, there is a limit as to how much we can help with the resources we have. Taking all of our money being spent on luxury items and donating them to overseas organizations would certainly curb the spread of poverty and disease, but at a steep price to our lifestyles. The question of whether or not to agree with Singer must be answered by a pragmatic cost-benefit analysis along with a philosophical and moral debate. The pros for Singer’s argument lies greatly in the moral arena. Drawing from philosopher John Rawls from his book A Theory of Justice, we must consider the “Veil of Ignorance.” To paraphrase, the Veil of Ignorance states that every person could have been born anywhere and at any time. This means that the millionaire kid born with a silver spoon in his mouth could have just as easily been born in poverty in a small African village. There is no more value placed on the life of a privileged kid, he simply has drawn a better lot in life. Relating to Singer’s proposal, the Veil of ignorance directly supports this redistribution of wealth. Morally, we have an obligation to help those less fortunate than ourselves because we could have been in their position given a different birthplace. We must do what we can to make the world a fairer most just place, and this proposal does just that. There are many other moral arguments for the proposal that are commonplace in America, such as giving to charity and helping the less fortunate, because they are unable to help themselves. These are not the only moral arguments that value human life. The most significant pragmatic argument for the plan is that the plan would put America back into the good graces of the world, leading to better relations. By showing the world that we are helping other nations and saving lives, we make a very god global showing. However, the pragmatic pros stop there. First of all, in the real world, we can’t expect that everybody is going to just immediately decide that this is the “good” thing to do and just change their lifestyles. People work hard for their money and most of them don’t even like increased taxes, much less all of their money being taken away. Second of all, the American economy in no small part is driven by luxury. Businesses such as the entertainment industry, the sports industry, and even the automobile industry would be shut down. Luxury cars would be gone, big houses would be a thing of the past, and travel would become a display of simplicity. Americans have a tendency to be extravagant, just watch “Celebrity Cribs” on MTV to find this out. With Singer’s plan, extravagancy would be extinct in America, leading to the extinction of our economy with all the jobs that would be lost. Realistically, this plan would not be able to be put into practice which is a major con. Not to mention the fact that it would be only American giving away luxury money plus the fact that its not guaranteed that of all our extra money would even solve all of the problems of the world. In addition to this, a moral problem is presented in the question of who gets the American money and in what quantities. The plan simply is not feasible. Also, there would be many moral objections. What a person earns is typically thought to be his or her own property. Yes, taxes do take away from a person’s property, but not to the crippling effect that this proposal would. This plan is akin to a global communication with the Americans working to their abilities and giving to the world’s needs. Communism has been shown to be immoral and not to work in the past, why would it be right now? If Americans felt that the process was immoral and that they were being wronged, all incentive to earn luxury money would be lost. The money that they don’t have can’t be stolen from them. This plan simply does not work, morally and pragmatically. I believe that through cost-benefit analysis it is plain to see that the benefits of “helping the needy” just can’t outweigh the harms of the flaws in the plan. The most notable flaw is the cost of this plan would be in the downfall of the American economy, as we know it. The benefit of helping the entire world out of poverty and disease isn’t guaranteed and is at best, a very long shot. The veil of ignorance may say that the right thing is to try to make things equal for all people. But in practicality, Singer’s argument has too many cons to be outweighed by the pros. This essay scored an 6 of 9 on the 2005 AP English Language and Composition exam. “Whatever money you’re spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away.” This is Peter Singer’s philosophy on ending the food and medicine crisis in other countries. While his idea of helping is wonderful, his plan is slight flawed. It is a good idea. It would help other people. The hungry would not be hungry anymore. No more deaths from starvation. Many people would be saved from curable diseases. They would not have to suffer anymore. The people would have a happier and healthier chance at life. The world’s feelings toward the United States would also improve greatly. But, the plan has its cons. Money sent to organizations is often misused, mismanaged, or pocketed, such as the 9/11 money that was to go to families of the victims. Also, the effects of such a plan would take a long time for the needy to notice and complaints would surface about why it is taking so long. People in the United States would also have a hard time giving up their money. They would feel that they worked hard for their money, and should be able to enjoy it. Why shouldn’t they? It is, in fact, their money. Another flaw would be defining exactly what a luxury is. Is luxury owning a car, or owning a Cadillac Escalade compared to a Ford Pinto? Is eating at a restaurant a luxury? Is prom a luxury? Is going to college a luxury? The word luxury would be hard to define. Also, this would collapse the United States economy. The people wouldn’t have the money to consume goods. Without sales, companies go under. With jobs, people don’t make money. The job loss would be staggering. Unemployment levels would skyrocket. Eventually, our country would go broke. Overtime, we would be a country in need of food and medicine. Peter Singer means well. He wants to help those in need. However, his plan has flaws. These flaws show that this plan would never work. Maybe one day there will be a plan that would work and be successful, but this is not the best plan.