I got this on my philosophy calendar:
[Peter Singer] poses a deal to earn money to buy a new TV by “selling” a homeless child to a corporation that will harvest his organs for transplants. Way bad, we agree. But, Singer argues that anytime we buy a new TV in lieu of sending money to a charity that protects homeless children, we’re doing the same thing.
Any thoughts on this? It’s an interesting philosophical thought process. Singer has revamped his argument in a book called “The Life you can Save” which is on my reading list.
(Note to Victor: I’d like to hear your opinion about this.)