"Live Free and Starve" and "The Singer Solution to World Poverty"

In  "Live Free and Starve",Chitra Divakaruni's article expounding upon efforts to end child labor and the reasoning for and against doing so, Divakaruni makes a vivid argument, emphasizing the fact that those who succumb to child labor, do so because that is their only option. Chitra Divakaruni explains that although she agrees to the abhorrence of child labor, she understands that under the circumstances to which these children live, without this opportunity to make money they would be living in even worse conditions then they are now. The only way for these children to truly benefit is if the United States to take responsibility for them once they quit their only way of making a living. Peter Singer's article "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" corresponds with this article in saying that the majority of Americans are not willing to give up the money they spend on luxuries to help save a live of a child, a feat which according to him would only cost "200 dollars." Singer helps elaborate upon Divakaruni's further by providing a statistic about the United States Government in how they do not "even meat the very modest United Nations - recommended target of .07 percent of gross national product; at the moment it lags far below that, at 0.09 percent." Singer further evaluates the lifestyles of Americans and the moral decisions; emphasizing upon how every American can donate at least 70% of their income to charity. He also evaluates the feverence of most people to immediately label someone who does sacrifices a child's life for a luxury, despite how, according to his beliefs, any American who does not donate the money that is not used on necessities is in essence doing the same. 

In the case of Chitra Divakaruni's article - "Live Free and Starve", I agree wholeheartedly upon the debate she makes upon whether "the children themselves would rather work under such harsh conditions or enjoy a leisure that comes without the benefit of food or clothing or shelter." Divakaruni actively explains the position these children are in and gives her opinion on both sides remaining impartial throughout the article and adding excerpt upon what she thinks should be done to improve this for the future. She explains about how although she is disgusted by the ways of child laborers, the children need it to make money. She furthers the argument by saying that if the United States wants to help, they must take responsibility for the children, for that is the only way they can benefit. The same impartiality cannot be said about Singer. He immediately makes the argument that by not donating the majority to all of your lively hood not used solely on necessities, you are in essences as bad as a man who sacrifices a child to by a luxury item such as a television or a car. Singer's apparent bias makes me skeptical of his viewpoint on the article and his opinion on what she be done. One bias of Singer that automatically makes me leery is how he openly chastises almost every American who doesn't donate every cent of their luxuries, but never addresses whether or not he himself donates a cent to charity. He then goes on to provide fact and statistic to support his claim as if hes done ample research on the topic, but if taken into in depth one can find that all his statistics simply explain what amount of money can be donated and how bad Americans are not to. Singer never once addresses the amount of Americans who actually donate money to charities, which according to John Stossel and Kristina Kendall of  ABC News is three quarters of American families or 70 percent. Furthermore, he continually displays his ignorance on the topic by displaying a completely unrealistic hypothetical situation of a man named Bob, who sacrifices a child for his Bugatti, which are both randomly placed in the middle of a train track with only one chance to chose between the Bugatti and the child by pulling the throw switch. He then uses this situation to further every other point made in his article automatically assuming that everyone agrees to the point he has made and thinks Bob is a monster; he then takes this to the extent that he says you 

are Bobs equal if you do not donate right now.

Although both articles provide great debates and actively address the situations of starvation and the morality of child labor, in order for an article to be beneficent, must actively and efficiently address the issue at hand as well as provide support for what to do in the future. Divakaruni's article actively and efficiently displays the cons and pros of child labor as well as how to fix it in the future, thus being an exemplary article and the one that most professionally persuades the reader to act in favor of what she is saying. On the other hand, Peter Singer's article is extremely bias and ignorant, immediately labeling all Americans as those who don’t donate and setting the standard that one should only spend money on absolute necessities and donate everything else.  His idea of creating a national welfare of sorts and he’s statistics and ideals to back it up are simply ignorant and is not something that should be taken into any concern.