This is a Reflection on an essay by Peter Singer, here is a link for those who haven't read the Essay before: http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/singermag.html
Singer's Solution to World Poverty is not an old idea in which people, who are fortunate enough to live a comfortable life in modernized countries, should donate the money they spend on excess luxuries to charities around the world that help children who live a miserable life. A big question that he shoves at you in this essay is whether you are living a morally decent life by giving no or little money to charity. In this essay he gives two stories about two people who did different things that would be considered to be indecent or immoral by most people. We have Dora, who sent a homeless kid to an unknown house for 1,000 dollars. Later on, she learns that (or maybe knew all a long) the location was probably a organ transplant facility where they killed street kids for their organs, which sell for a lot on the black market or for some dying old rich guy. In the end though, she decides to save the kid. Next we have Bob with his new treasured car. He parks near the end of a railway siding and goes walking. Along the tracks he sees a runaway train with a kid on the tracks right in the way of it. He is near a train track switch, which would divert the train away from the kid, but then the train would then proceed to crush Bob's new car. So, Bob decides not to throw the switch.
These two stories provide us with a focal point and examples of what most of us would consider immoral. I agree with Singer's point in that these two people's actions were not right. It was interesting to see how he tied in these stories into his essay. He addresses the problem of how Bob wouldn't provide any sacrifices for the life of the kid on the tracks, and the problem of people like Dora who spend their money on luxuries like new TVs or new styles of clothing, and others. One of the observations about society today that I liked from this essay was on second page of the essay, the last full paragraph. He says: "Suppose that there were more owners of priceless vintage cars - Carol, Dave, Emma, Fred and so on, down to Ziggy - all in exactly the same situation as Bob, with their own siding and their own switch, all sacrificing the child in order to preserve their own cherished car. Would that make it all right for Bob to do the same? To answer this question affirmatively is to endorse follow-the-crowd ethics - the kind of ethics that led many Germans to look away when the Nazi atrocities were being committed. We do not excuse them because others were behaving no better."
One idea I don’t agree with him entirely is where he says that every one should give away every penny spent on luxuries. I think that people should afford to have slack and be able to buy things that would not be considered a “necessity.” Why you ask? Well I mean if people were troubled about spending money on luxuries and instead gave everything to charity, it would be a pretty dull world for one. Another reason is that a lot of people try hard in life and work hard to be able to afford some luxuries and not give it all away to charity. If you make it immoral for people to spend money on luxuries then their goals and their hard work become meaning less to those people. Also, think about the effect on trade and commerce. Would there be as fast of a growth in technology, innovation, and modernization if more people started to buy less and less of things like new television sets, computers, DVDs, video games, and others? Although I maybe wrong in saying these things, it was just something I thought about and just wanted to ask and discuss out loud.
Overall this essay was pretty good, reminding me of my duty as someone who was born into moderate luxury. I wonder though, if any community out there would ever try such a solution.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
i agree with james. if we donated our money to charities around the world our hard work would become meaningless. also, it is sort of mean to say it, but life is not fair. as much as we want to, we cant save the world. you should donate whatever amount you feel comfortable donating, whether it be 300k or $3, because you worked hard and earned that money. i would personally donate one or 2 hundread, and not feel guilty, because no matter what you do, you cant save the world. also, if those kids did survive, they would grow up and have more kids. the population would sprial out of control and then what would we do? we would be in the same position, that there are people in need of help and according to his essay, we would have to help them. this might sound mean, but its true. and as singer puts it "then thats the way things are"
James, really nice post. The idea of giving everything to some homeless child in the middle of no where does make it a selfish thought too. If EVERYONE were to donate every single unused dollar to a child, that child would build up a surplus of money and then we would also become poor, eventually. Like you said, what's a world without entertainment? Awesome post.
Post a Comment