Oh, well, c’est la vie.

For example, you spend most of your introduction belittling Singer for not having any scholastic expertise in economics. While surely a degree in the field would give Singer more credibility, it is perfectly possible to come up with a compelling economic argument without it. Philosophers often do a better job at arguing in certain fields than those who are specialized in that field.

Also, whether the kid deserves to die for being stupid enough to wander into the tracks is not at all relevant. The thought experiment was set up that way to test people’s intuitions, when a thought experiment is placed, it is often something that seems unlikely, which is precisely why a thought experiment is needed, because it allows us to control the variables of the problem so that you can isolate the question you want answered, something you often can’t do in actual experiments.

You must take the factors as they are and make judgments upon them. There’s no point in talking about the kid’s stupidity or the man’s selfishness, or his attachment to the car. The question is a simple one, and must be answered intuitively: whether or not the man made the correct decision as things are.

You say you want to “look at it from a more real perspective” But you fail to realize that to speculate about why the child is on the tracks or anything else defeats the purpose of the thought experiment altogether.

You arrogantly say: “Yes, Mr. Singer, Most people would find that wrong. But then again, that’s why the intelligence levels of populations are broken up into various groups. See, most people would only see a flat question: Does the life of the child equal that of the car. Looking at that, most people would say the life of the child was worth more.”

But you fail to realize that that is precisely what you’re supposed to do.

If you answered the way you did to any philosopher, speculating about specifics of the scenarios Singer put forth, with sentences like:

“I can imagine that the Old Man washed the car every week by hand, with a bucket of warm water and special soap as to not damage the paint. He must have known every bolt of that car from repairing it; no doubt the hours he spent working to keep that vintage car in perfect order was a labor of love”

You would be laughed at for bringing in irrelevancies to the problem. All you have to focus on is precisely what the thought experiment states. Also, the morally right answer is to save the child.

“They say that humans are a selfish race, and under those conditions, I would have to agree. Because, no matter how many times I think about it, deep in my heart, I know that I would do the same thing. And I know many others would too. Professor Singer gave us that situation to pull on some heartstrings and to make us enraged at the old man for doing such a terrible terrible thing. But his mistake, the singular flaw in his clever plan, was including too much detail. He told us what the car meant to the old man”

This bothered me a bit, though you are not explicit about it you seem to imply the old man’s action was justified. It is not. Regardless of whether you feel you’d do the same, the question isn’t what you would do, the question is what is the morally correct choice. You say “terrible, terrible” sarcastically, and I feel bad for you if you truly think that the morally correct answer is to let the child die because it’s one thing to recognize the moral choice (saving the child) and deciding to ignore it, and it’s another thing entirely to think that you are morally justified in letting the child die.

“How arrogant, how conceited, how hypocritical! Mr. Singer, I must ask, what kind of car do you drive? How many vacations have you taken your family on? In what sort of home do you live in? A town house? A condo in a nice high-rise building near Princeton, where you teach?”

Here you go on with the ad hominems. Whether or not Singer is a hypocrite is irrelevant to his argument. It is perfectly possible for an alcoholic to give good arguments for why one should not drink, it is perfectly plausible for a smoker to give arguments against smoking.

Denouncing hypocrisy is one of the most amateurish mistakes you can make in refuting an argument precisely because it has nothing to do with the argument your opponent puts forth.You might as well be insulting Singer on his haircut.

Realize that there is a difference between a debate and an argument. In a debate you can try dumb rhetorical ploys like ad hominems or red herrings, because winning a debate depends on whether or not you get an audience’s reaction. Which is why presidential debates and campaigns are full of candidates talking crap about each other. Winning an argument however, must be achieved through logic, through clear and solid refutation of your opponent’s arguments and premises, not through petty and irrelevant insults.

That being said in assessing Singer’s “solution” as untenable, although there are plenty more reasons for why this is the case than the ones you gave. In fact you didn’t really address WHY his solution is impractical, all you did was talk about how we already give money through taxes, again, that to me seems a flaw, instead adress Singer’s points directly and explain why they fail.

For example it’s not hard to see (as some friends and I did when we first read the article) that Singer’s demands would, if followed, create some of the same economic problems as communism, or even socialism. After all if there was a compelling moral obligation to send all surplus money out, it is doubtful people would work as hard as they do for high paying jobs, since in the end they’d only be allowed to keep the bare minimum anyways. Furthermore the arts and many other businesses would completely die out, since things like concerts, movies, paintings, or even restaurants would all be considered “luxuries” by Singer, and therefore to spend money of them would be immoral in the light of starving children in Africa. So both incentive to excel and an immense amount of jobs would take a hit.

Finally, you fail to realize that although Singer gives a solution which is economic in nature, his entire article is actually an ethical argument. So he actually is working within his field. Singer is a consequentialist, more specifically a utilitarian, meaning he sees the morality of an action as based solely on the consequences it has. As a utilitarian he is committed to the view that the morally right actions are those that have the best possible outcome for everyone (a kind of cost-benefit analysis).

His whole argument is based not on trying to make people feel guilty, but instead on the premise that the money we spend on luxuries could be better spent saving lives, thereby increasing net utility. It’s supposed to be a logical argument, though he of course fails to see both the practicality of his solution as well as some of the faulty assumptions he has, such as that of our negative responsibility for the death of starving children.

(I post on FRC as rhinocero, in case you’re wondering how I found your blog)

I am happy to report to you that after efforts of another “Nazanin” in Canada who let an international campaign, the other “Nazanin” in Iran was saved.

Go to http://www.helpnazanin.com for full detail