week of November 4: Singer argues that we ought to give a whole lot more to the poor than we do. How much does he think that we should give to the poor exactly? Do you agree with his argument? Why or why not?
Peter Singer, in his writing says, that our government is responsible for not providing refugees with means of survival. This is sad but true that our government doesnt give massive aid for those in need. Singer refutes this, "suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care is bad"..."failing to promote some moral good, comparable in significance to the bad thing we can prevent." He holds no excuses: Singer believes there is no reason that we should not be able to help third world countries, for it is as easy as serving our neighbors! It is obvious time and distance is not a obstacle in this case where in a global village our world has transformed into, transportation is not a boundary. Since this is one of the excuses that many adopt, Smith refutes it. From reading this, I can collect that Singer feels it is our duty to give to our neighbors as well as people across the world more than what we actually do. Numbers also play a role in granting assistance. People will say, if 5 people around me aren't doing anything to rescue a poor child, then why should I? Or why should I give anything more than what the rest of the population gives say, $5. Since Peter is a hypothetical imperative follower, he also argued that whether to give or not to give is indicitive of the situation at hand. His philosophy also entails that the result will not be as good as it would be if everyone did a little less than he ought to do, or if only some do all that they ought to do. I know how hard it is to give when I dont have much to give and others may feel the same way with the recession and all, but since I am a philosopher, I believe that people should definitely help the world a little more than they do I think a dollar or two is good enough, a small action goes a long way, but if one person gives, 5 others may not so the consequences cancel out, therefore we must do so by sacrificing anything else morally significant, "we ought, morally, to do it" most feel good that they feel good about doing good, self-altruistically speaking yet. The charitable man is rewarded while the noncharitable man is condemned...it is sad when there are poor people living in the streets across the country, homeless vets, and thousands of children that are starving in America...and this is the land of opportunity?
I feel there is a lot of emphasis on poverty in developing countries and not enough on how much poverty there is in America. There are no commercials asking us to send money to starving children in Iowa like there are for children in Africa. If we do in fact need to give more to the poor it should be in our own communities. We have to be able to take care of ourselves before we can take care of others. If someone has a lot of money and are frivolously spending it maybe they should consider donating some of it. It would help the community as a whole. If you have some extra change put it in the Salvation Army buckets. I feel if you are able to help out you should as much as you are able.
It is different here in the United States because we have a lot more opportunity to make a living.Other countries are used as work horses and are just less fortunate to make money. I agree that we should help our less fortunate out here as well.
I agree it does have to start in our own country. However, the reason why all of those countries aren't developed is because America has taken most of their resources and put them into their own industries. I don't believe in those commercials for kids in Africa mainly because the man behind the camera is more than likely eating a sandwich in front of these children. Our history as a planet needs to be observed more before we blame all of the other countries for not having anything.
I agree with you because I have watched those commercials that begs us for our money for the sake of those third world countries, but there are none for kids in America. I think this is unfair, because in order to help someone else, we must help ourselves first! I'm not saying that giving to other countries is wrong, but I feel that if someone is rich, they should give money from their own pockets to distribute the wealth. There is definitely an imbalance of wealth and money in this country. In Islam and other religions, it is fact that the wealthy and prosperous donate more money than those of the lower class, and that I think is something we should learn and practice in America.
I believe that people are in need everywhere. I think that everyone that is capable could give people things. I am guilty myself, but I enjoy having fun and treating myself to expensive items. I could easy give my spare money to people in need. Most of people do not understand that being poor isn't a misfortune it is a choice between life or death. People are fighting everyday to fight death.( starvation, disease, malnutrition,) I believe that people also use the non-profit organizations to make millions of dollars that do not go directly to the cause. I heard that some owner of a non-profit organization was raking in 6 figures just for himself. That is wrong. I would much rather give clothes or food away, knowing it will be used for good.
I love the brutal honesty that you showed. We all have that desire to go out and spend money on things we shouldn't. As far as those fundraisers, they do get so much more money than actually is invested back into their cause. Not necessarily because they don't care but they have money that they have to take back in for travel expenses, food and other items. I hope the man that embezzled that money has an awful future because he deserves it.
I think too that poverty is everywhere, yet we seem to ignore it or be in denial that there is even poor people in our own country. It's like after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, our former President George W. Bush was wanting to send relief and care packages over to Iraq! It seems that now there is more information about death and disease and we are doing our best to fight these contributing factors, but there is still work to be done. I have heard that relief packages don't go directly to the cause, they sit in a warehouse often too old and rotten to even feed the hungry. I think that is a very crummy fact, that there is people starving in our own country, yet to found out about where the food goes just blows my mind. I wish there was a better way our government can fight poverty and the distribution of wealth...it is sad when every congressman has his/her own private jet! I don't know...all I'm saying is that I would give my shirt to anyone I saw on the streets...but that is just who I am...
The only way to make sure your items you are donating are being used is if you personally go and give them to the person in need. That I believe is the only real way of knowing that they are reaping all the benefits. I will say too that people scamming others out of money doesn't just happen in America, I also saw it happen when I was with a group in Haiti. We found out a person in charge of distributing items donated to the community was hording and keeping them for there own family instead of giving them to the people who needed them.
Singer basically believes that we should do anything in our power to help those in need. Anything from donating plasma, donating items to goodwill, or funding a small amount to a charity or homeless shelter is what I consider helping others out of the goodness of ones heart. Singer made it clear that we need not go outside our moral comfort zone but any one that can help in any little way morally they should help. I think that people all around the world whether it be locally or kids in Africa. I wish I could help everyone but I just cant. I believe if I were living comfortably and well off then I could donate to different places and at least do my part in helping what ever way I can. Unfortunately at this time in my life I am not yet able to achieve such possibilities. However one might argue that no matter how much people donate or help out that there will always be people in need. The less fortunate may be never ending because if you think about it there will always be a "poor" class even if they are not in poverty, financially some one will always be on the bottom and some one will always be on top. Just something to ponder! :) In my years ahead I will make it a goal to help in whatever ways that I can!
Singer tells you his goal and presents you with his arguments. His goal is to persuade us that both persons and governments ought to help with famine relief, particularly in "East Bengal" for one example. But, most significantly, his primary thesis is that the present way both people and governments deal with such disasters is "morally unjustified". Singer further states that if everyone in circumstances like mine gave £5 to the Bengal Relief Fund, there would be enough to provide food, shelter, and medical care for the refugees, but if they don’t then why would I. Where as buy donating more money you’d be helping more in need. I certainly believe that if you’re in the position help your fellow man, I’m sure you would want the same in return if the shoe was on the other foot, but I do realize that we are not always fully aware of everything going on in the world today to always be there to help.
Singer states that we should help out the poor as much as we possibly can according to our situation. So, if we have more money than we know what to do with we could donate a lot to the poor, but if we are struggling ourselves we could donate just a few dollars. I actually agree and disagree with his argument. I agree with it because there is no reason why those of us who can afford to spare a little (or a lot) can't help. Times are tough in this country and all over the world and so many people have to worry about when their next meal will be or how they're going to stay warm during winter. I see nothing wrong with helping out people who need it. I disagree with it because some of us can't even spare a few cents, like me for example. I, like a lot of college students, go to school full time and work a part-time job making minimum wage. All of my paycheck goes towards gasoline for my beater of a car and maybe a few groceries. I'm lucky enough to live with my parents, but I pay for everything I need. Whatever extra money I may have stays in my bank so I can pay for a $300-$350 car insurance policy every six months. The only way that I can and do help the poor is by donating clothing to Good Will or Salvation Army. I'd actually rather donate clothing or food items to the poor rather than give money to a big-name charity. This isn't because I don't want the poor having my money, but because I don't trust large charities with my money. I want to know that my hard earned cash is really going to good use and not being used to fill their pockets.
I agree with your viewpoint here. If we were to give every last dollar extra dollar we had then we would possibly be in need ourselves. However, I do like the point you brought up about donating clothes or food. I think people sometimes forget that other things besides money can be donated. Clothes, food, time, anything little thing that you can is better than nothing at all. This is something I myself forget at times. That sweater in my closet that I haven't worn in 2 years could be the difference between a person freezing or being warm this winter.
I totally agree with you. I want to know who I am helping and what it is being used towards. I don't want my money going toward people who already have enough and are scamming me and many others out of money. Some people who start companies like to make their own salary off the the organization and I don't believe that is right because the people are not donating money to pay a person's paycheck.
Singer believes we should do everything we possibly can to help out the poor as long as we are able to live on what we have. Singer wants everybody to help the poor with whatever they can spare. He believes it's not fair that we can live in luxury while other people are dying of hunger. I do agree with his position to some point. We shouldn't be so selfish with what we have when other people have nothing. On the opposite end of the spectrum though we do work for what we have and shouldn't they also work for what they have? (providing they are allowed to work and get paid decent) Around Iowa most people don't have millions of dollars so it is harder for us to give money to the poor. The people who should really be helping should be millionaires. They spend outrageous amounts of money for clothing, houses, and cars while other people can't afford a loaf of bread. So my point is if you can spare a little bit of money to help the poor, you should do so generously.
This is the opinion of the 99%. The rich get richer and the disparity is only getting constricting on the lower populace. But instead of helping others with their money, they all choose a more selfish path. I think we should force rich people to watch those commercials of african poverty.
Singer says that we should give as much as we have to the poor. To Singer, it is not right one person to live a life of gross excess while others are starving and homeless. I agree that many people out there do not do as much as they can or sometimes even anything to help the poor. The wealth distribution in the country is grossly out of proportion and if everyone did a little bit more then perhaps we could achieve more of a balance. However, if we take Singer's belief to an extreme and every last cent we have to the poor then we run the risk of becoming poor ourselves. If we bankrupt ourselves in order to help the poor and then become poor ourself the problem isn't really solved but rather increased.
Your right! I never thought of it that way. That would just be a vicious circular pattern. By everyone giving their all to the poor then the poor would become the wealthy and the wealthy would become the poor. Then the cycle would just constantly repeat itself!
Personally, I think we need more people like Singer because I believe he has reached the top of Maslow's hierarchy of needs that being transcendence. He obviously wants the best for everyone. He believes that everyone that has more than they need to survive that they should pass it down to others in need. I have seen it all from the poorest to the richest. Call me out if i'm wrong but I believe about 75% of people in the world that are rich either inherited or married into that money. Most people that are successful had one of the many stepping stones it takes to become that way. Whether that be both parents or one parent having a lump sum of money. Being poor in America is like playing monopoly with all of the properties but one owned and that one still has a chance to be landed on. So yes, I completely agree with his argument. We are a society that focuses on vanity aspects of life and I can't say I don't because it is our way of life. If we each had one million dollars given to us in our life time we would barely be able to spend it all if we invested right. In conclusion, I think he has the right idea of where we need to head as a nation or we will continue to have people dying of hunger and people killing for money to feed their own.
If we all had one million dollars, the prices of everuthing would inflate so much the value of a dollar would decrease to next to nothing. The sad truth is we need poor people like me to sustain economic balance. But if the rich keep getting rocher the economy will be less like a see saw and more like a hiant rock on one side and a baby on tje other.
I believe that the people who don't have the opportunity to make a living and their is no hope for their future should be helped as much as possible. I understand there are poor people in the United States, but here we have way more opportunity than other countries. I also agree that I would want to help myself survive before somebody else. People who are multimillionaires could afford to help somebody who is really in need not just lazy and don't want to better themselves. There is the other side of the coin as well. Millionaires earned everything they have and can do with their money as they please. I think we can do more for the poor with donations, food, and shelter. I know if I was less fortunate or on the down and out than I would greatly appreciate a hot meal and a roof over my head.
I couldn't agree more with your post! There is definitely much more opportunity here in America than there is in other countries, so that just shows in itself that some people are just plain lazy. Not all people, but there are some that rely on others for assistance. Do they not realize that they get their help because other people do what they don't want to do? People work hard for what they had. It is possible that a mulitimillionaire could have started on the bottom as well, but they worked their way up with hard work.
I agree we do need to help the poor out any way we can. People can be selfish and need to think about other people. I think the millionaires that were poor at one time or more rounded. They understand the struggles and are willing to help out more.
Singer believes that we should give to the poor as much as we can. As much as I think it is good to do good things for others I really don't like this. People can be poor for different reasons, they could actually have a job that doesn't pay well with a family they need to support. Others are poor because they don't have a job, don't want a job, don't have the motivation to go get one or work for their money, and are content to live a life mooching off others. Now don't get me wrong, I agree with giving to the poor who do truly deserve it, but not so much that you have only what you need to get by. I see it from a workers perspective that, hey, I've worked hard for the money I have and the things I've earned why should I just give that away? Id be willing to give somethings to those who really do need it but if they don't why is it my responsibility to get you through? In life you get what you put in, and if you don't put anything in how is that fair for those who do work hard everyday and still barely make it by? So I guess my feelings are sure, give to the poor who really deserve it, otherwise as unfortunate as it may be, why give away what you worked hard to earn to those that don't?
I agree completely with you. I think the reason they are poor matters more then the simple fact that they are poor. But when the government takes taxes from paychecks to fund things like welfare, they don't much care why the person needs it.
Going off that, We have talked about government programs in the government class im taking this semester and he talked about how programs like welfare, disability, and the like are misused and abused so badly. He used examples such as people whose unemployment has run out and it is a last resort. And what is really upsetting is that these people who don't really need it are taking money away from those who actually need it, and taking it away from a government that could easily use those funds elsewhere.
I wouldn't want my money going to people who don't want to work and make an attempt to better their lives either. And I also agree with giving to those who do need help, but not giving away every last extra cent I have. The way I see it, if I were to give all of my extra money that I could spare, what would happen if an unexpected emergency came up? This is another reason why I like donating clothes, and if I can spare it, food, to those who really need the help.
Singer believes its morally right to help poor people who are struggling as much as possible. Yes, this would be the moral thing todo, but I know way to many people who don't work hard trying to better their own lives. I don't agree with enabling the people that depend on the government or other people before they go get a job. Personally I would not donate to someone living in the United States because i see opportunity. I would much rather give to people suffering in Africa and other 3rd world countries. I would not donate to people that already have the mind set that they can live without working if it weren't for the government already taking it out of taxes. I'm a hard worker when it comes to making money for my family and I shouldn't have to provide for someone else's to.
AMEN! I believe there are people out there that legitimately need the assistance, and those are the ones I am more willing to help out. I work hard for my money, like you, so why can't they? Sometimes there are physical disabilities that prevent them from doing so, and that's understandable. The people that stand alongside the side of the road begging for money? No, that irritates me. They could be out looking for places that are hiring and filling out applications and earning the money themselves instead of simply begging for it. That's the easy way out and someone should inform them that life is not easy.
I think it is unfair to lump all of America's poor into the category of moochers. It is easy to see only those that exploit the system and forget that there are those that truly need it. What about the man working 60 hours a week at minimum wage who can barely support his family? Is he not in need of help and working harder than those that have vastly more than he does. Why is it those that sit in desk all day rake in the dough while those that break their backs land in middle to lower class? Don't get me wrong, I understand that our poor have it much better than the poor in third world countries but that doesn't mean that we should ignore the imbalance of wealth within our own country.
Singer believes that we need to do what we can in order to help the poor get back on their feet and out of poverty. I do agree with him to a certain extent. If someone NEEDS a helping hand and we have some extra money to give, why not help them out? If we were in their situation we would hope that they do the same thing for us. I emphasized the word “needs” because I feel that there would be people that take advantage of the help and pretend that they need the help when they really don’t. If they physically can’t work or have some condition that prevents them from doing so, then those are truly the people that need help, not those who are perfectly able to fend for themselves but are just too lazy.
Yes ma'am! Giving my hard earned money to the undeserved would be my only issue with Singers theory. I believe that there are well deserved people that need help in the United states and other countries. For example the starving children in Africa clearly need our help! However if you think about the debt we have going on with our government then I understand why the government itself doesn't donate any, because we have none to offer. How can we give to others when we may need it ourselves. Unfortunately I think there will always be a poor (bottom) class of the status chain, however I hope for all that poverty will one day cease to exist. :)
I agree. Although I may not give lots of money away, I always donate a bit to groups like the American Heart Association, or to my brother in his fundraisers for MD, cancer benefits/research, etc. in hopes that my money helps someone who needs it. Another thing I do that is not monetary is give blood whenever the Red Cross has a blood drive in town. I am thankful to be so blessed and healthy, and i think that if I give just a bit of money, or a pint of blood to someone who needs its more than I do, and hopefully someone who deserves it.
Singer believes that it is morally right to donate to those less fortunate than us. Most of us are already struggling as it is though. I think there are better ways to help them out. Like make more jobs so they can earn their money like the rest of us do. Maybe even have cheap/free birth control so they don't keep having kids when they can't even take care of themselves. I donate to special needs and children because that is something they didn't do to themselves and they can't help that. I was taught that if you want something, you work for it. I was also taught that if you can help others, do it. But I personally can't send a bunch of money to the poor because I need my money to survive. I understand that there are people out there that can't help their situation and I have no problem helping them out when I have some extra cash.
I couldn't agree with you more. Times are tough out there and many of us can't afford to spare even a few dollars. I think that donating clothes, food, and warm blankets are good alternative ways to help the truly needy out, as well as providing shelters. I, too, was raised with the 'work for what you want/need' ethic as well as the 'help those you can' attitude, and I swear by them. I work hard for my paycheck and I usually spend most of it on gasoline and groceries for myself and my family; the rest stays in the bank for car insurance. It's rather interesting seeing how much I can make sometimes not even $80 a week stretch. But, this also means that I can't send tons of money to the poor, so I try to help out by donating clothes or giving up my time in some other way.
Singer says that we should help out those less fortunate than ourselves. I believe that if people are working, but their jobs don't afford them the ability to live, then they should get all the help we can give. However, if they would just squander the money/aide on things like drugs, then we should instead get them into a rehab. program. If a person doesn't have a job, or isn't looking for one, then I feel like they don't really deserve any help, because they aren't trying to help themselves.
Singer's views are all too familar in this day and age. It's the classic help everyone around the world riff. I feel that this aubject has been tread on so thoroughly to us as children through school, commercials, infomercials, pamphlets, and a slew of other things that we either become one of two things. We either get immune to it all, a slow numbing to ignore all the suffering in other countries as well as our own, or the oppisite, which is to give up everything to help the less fortunate. While there are some people who are in the middle and give to charities often for altruistic reasons, i feel we are predominantly one or the other. We are so desensitized to the tragedies of everyday life in third world countries because we wouldn't be able to function in our own lives with a clean conscience if we weren't.
Singer believes we should give to the poor as much as we have or as much as possible. I don't believe in this. I feel like we all got through barriers to get where we are today and people who didn't do that shouldn't be given my hard worked and earned money. If the person is there because of a disability they have or a mental disorder then I would be more lenient towards that. However, I wouldn't look down upon someone who didn't give as much or didn't give anything at all.
Sing argues that we take for granted our way of life. We think that because we don't have every single thing we desire, we are poor or not well off. I beg too differ, the way we live is much better than the people in third world countries. I have been to Haiti and seen what truly poor people look like. We have so much more than what they do that I agree with Singer, we should be obligated to help them in anyway we can. There are people who will say that we should worry about the people in our own country first and sure we probably should. But this isn't just the select few out of many that need help, it is the whole country that needs help because there are very few that have enough to survive. We don't even need to donate money, even donating clothes, shoes, or going down and putting time into helping them is enough. Although I don't think it should be required of a person who is not already well off to donate money, time, ect. that they don't have.
This is such a huge topic to tackle; the great inequality in our world. It's an issue that is so close to my heart. This topic is a good argument start and prompts we as students to think. I totally agree with Peter Singer's idea even though I know that some people may not agree with this idea. I personally thinks that we cannot put a price tag on human's life but if we do the value of human life will worth a million price. Aren't every human being suffering the same? So if suffering doesn’t count more than anyone else, it means that we should give or share part of our wealth to alleviate that suffering because there are so many people in the world who suffer more than we do. To ask how much we should we give, I think how much you donate doesn't matter as long as you follow you duty by helping. I bet million of people live on no more than two dollars a day. So we need to know that all donations count, no matter how big or small they all add up. One single dollar, which is in modern and development countries has very low value, could feed a child or someone in need for the day. “A dollar means more to a beggar than to a millionaire.” I think the point is that a relatively small sum of money can have a huge effect on the lives of those who live in poverty. So I hope that we can give our help and hands to those who in need.
Peter Singer, in his writing says, that our government is responsible for not providing refugees with means of survival. This is sad but true that our government doesnt give massive aid for those in need. Singer refutes this, "suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care is bad"..."failing to promote some moral good, comparable in significance to the bad thing we can prevent." He holds no excuses: Singer believes there is no reason that we should not be able to help third world countries, for it is as easy as serving our neighbors! It is obvious time and distance is not a obstacle in this case where in a global village our world has transformed into, transportation is not a boundary. Since this is one of the excuses that many adopt, Smith refutes it. From reading this, I can collect that Singer feels it is our duty to give to our neighbors as well as people across the world more than what we actually do. Numbers also play a role in granting assistance. People will say, if 5 people around me aren't doing anything to rescue a poor child, then why should I? Or why should I give anything more than what the rest of the population gives say, $5. Since Peter is a hypothetical imperative follower, he also argued that whether to give or not to give is indicitive of the situation at hand. His philosophy also entails that the result will not be as good as it would be if everyone did a little less than he ought to do, or if only some do all that they ought to do. I know how hard it is to give when I dont have much to give and others may feel the same way with the recession and all, but since I am a philosopher, I believe that people should definitely help the world a little more than they do I think a dollar or two is good enough, a small action goes a long way, but if one person gives, 5 others may not so the consequences cancel out, therefore we must do so by sacrificing anything else morally significant, "we ought, morally, to do it" most feel good that they feel good about doing good, self-altruistically speaking yet. The charitable man is rewarded while the noncharitable man is condemned...it is sad when there are poor people living in the streets across the country, homeless vets, and thousands of children that are starving in America...and this is the land of opportunity?
ReplyDeleteI feel there is a lot of emphasis on poverty in developing countries and not enough on how much poverty there is in America. There are no commercials asking us to send money to starving children in Iowa like there are for children in Africa. If we do in fact need to give more to the poor it should be in our own communities. We have to be able to take care of ourselves before we can take care of others. If someone has a lot of money and are frivolously spending it maybe they should consider donating some of it. It would help the community as a whole. If you have some extra change put it in the Salvation Army buckets. I feel if you are able to help out you should as much as you are able.
ReplyDeleteIt is different here in the United States because we have a lot more opportunity to make a living.Other countries are used as work horses and are just less fortunate to make money. I agree that we should help our less fortunate out here as well.
DeleteI agree it does have to start in our own country. However, the reason why all of those countries aren't developed is because America has taken most of their resources and put them into their own industries. I don't believe in those commercials for kids in Africa mainly because the man behind the camera is more than likely eating a sandwich in front of these children. Our history as a planet needs to be observed more before we blame all of the other countries for not having anything.
DeleteI agree with you because I have watched those commercials that begs us for our money for the sake of those third world countries, but there are none for kids in America. I think this is unfair, because in order to help someone else, we must help ourselves first! I'm not saying that giving to other countries is wrong, but I feel that if someone is rich, they should give money from their own pockets to distribute the wealth. There is definitely an imbalance of wealth and money in this country. In Islam and other religions, it is fact that the wealthy and prosperous donate more money than those of the lower class, and that I think is something we should learn and practice in America.
DeleteI believe that people are in need everywhere. I think that everyone that is capable could give people things. I am guilty myself, but I enjoy having fun and treating myself to expensive items. I could easy give my spare money to people in need. Most of people do not understand that being poor isn't a misfortune it is a choice between life or death. People are fighting everyday to fight death.( starvation, disease, malnutrition,) I believe that people also use the non-profit organizations to make millions of dollars that do not go directly to the cause. I heard that some owner of a non-profit organization was raking in 6 figures just for himself. That is wrong. I would much rather give clothes or food away, knowing it will be used for good.
ReplyDeleteI love the brutal honesty that you showed. We all have that desire to go out and spend money on things we shouldn't. As far as those fundraisers, they do get so much more money than actually is invested back into their cause. Not necessarily because they don't care but they have money that they have to take back in for travel expenses, food and other items. I hope the man that embezzled that money has an awful future because he deserves it.
DeleteI think too that poverty is everywhere, yet we seem to ignore it or be in denial that there is even poor people in our own country. It's like after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, our former President George W. Bush was wanting to send relief and care packages over to Iraq! It seems that now there is more information about death and disease and we are doing our best to fight these contributing factors, but there is still work to be done. I have heard that relief packages don't go directly to the cause, they sit in a warehouse often too old and rotten to even feed the hungry. I think that is a very crummy fact, that there is people starving in our own country, yet to found out about where the food goes just blows my mind. I wish there was a better way our government can fight poverty and the distribution of wealth...it is sad when every congressman has his/her own private jet! I don't know...all I'm saying is that I would give my shirt to anyone I saw on the streets...but that is just who I am...
DeleteThe only way to make sure your items you are donating are being used is if you personally go and give them to the person in need. That I believe is the only real way of knowing that they are reaping all the benefits. I will say too that people scamming others out of money doesn't just happen in America, I also saw it happen when I was with a group in Haiti. We found out a person in charge of distributing items donated to the community was hording and keeping them for there own family instead of giving them to the people who needed them.
DeleteSinger basically believes that we should do anything in our power to help those in need. Anything from donating plasma, donating items to goodwill, or funding a small amount to a charity or homeless shelter is what I consider helping others out of the goodness of ones heart. Singer made it clear that we need not go outside our moral comfort zone but any one that can help in any little way morally they should help. I think that people all around the world whether it be locally or kids in Africa. I wish I could help everyone but I just cant. I believe if I were living comfortably and well off then I could donate to different places and at least do my part in helping what ever way I can. Unfortunately at this time in my life I am not yet able to achieve such possibilities. However one might argue that no matter how much people donate or help out that there will always be people in need. The less fortunate may be never ending because if you think about it there will always be a "poor" class even if they are not in poverty, financially some one will always be on the bottom and some one will always be on top. Just something to ponder! :) In my years ahead I will make it a goal to help in whatever ways that I can!
ReplyDeleteSinger tells you his goal and presents you with his arguments. His goal is to persuade us that both persons and governments ought to help with famine relief, particularly in "East Bengal" for one example. But, most significantly, his primary thesis is that the present way both people and governments deal with such disasters is "morally unjustified". Singer further states that if everyone in circumstances like mine gave £5 to the Bengal Relief Fund, there would be enough to provide food, shelter, and medical care for the refugees, but if they don’t then why would I. Where as buy donating more money you’d be helping more in need. I certainly believe that if you’re in the position help your fellow man, I’m sure you would want the same in return if the shoe was on the other foot, but I do realize that we are not always fully aware of everything going on in the world today to always be there to help.
ReplyDeleteSinger states that we should help out the poor as much as we possibly can according to our situation. So, if we have more money than we know what to do with we could donate a lot to the poor, but if we are struggling ourselves we could donate just a few dollars. I actually agree and disagree with his argument. I agree with it because there is no reason why those of us who can afford to spare a little (or a lot) can't help. Times are tough in this country and all over the world and so many people have to worry about when their next meal will be or how they're going to stay warm during winter. I see nothing wrong with helping out people who need it. I disagree with it because some of us can't even spare a few cents, like me for example. I, like a lot of college students, go to school full time and work a part-time job making minimum wage. All of my paycheck goes towards gasoline for my beater of a car and maybe a few groceries. I'm lucky enough to live with my parents, but I pay for everything I need. Whatever extra money I may have stays in my bank so I can pay for a $300-$350 car insurance policy every six months. The only way that I can and do help the poor is by donating clothing to Good Will or Salvation Army. I'd actually rather donate clothing or food items to the poor rather than give money to a big-name charity. This isn't because I don't want the poor having my money, but because I don't trust large charities with my money. I want to know that my hard earned cash is really going to good use and not being used to fill their pockets.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your viewpoint here. If we were to give every last dollar extra dollar we had then we would possibly be in need ourselves. However, I do like the point you brought up about donating clothes or food. I think people sometimes forget that other things besides money can be donated. Clothes, food, time, anything little thing that you can is better than nothing at all. This is something I myself forget at times. That sweater in my closet that I haven't worn in 2 years could be the difference between a person freezing or being warm this winter.
DeleteI totally agree with you. I want to know who I am helping and what it is being used towards. I don't want my money going toward people who already have enough and are scamming me and many others out of money. Some people who start companies like to make their own salary off the the organization and I don't believe that is right because the people are not donating money to pay a person's paycheck.
DeleteSinger believes we should do everything we possibly can to help out the poor as long as we are able to live on what we have. Singer wants everybody to help the poor with whatever they can spare. He believes it's not fair that we can live in luxury while other people are dying of hunger. I do agree with his position to some point. We shouldn't be so selfish with what we have when other people have nothing. On the opposite end of the spectrum though we do work for what we have and shouldn't they also work for what they have? (providing they are allowed to work and get paid decent) Around Iowa most people don't have millions of dollars so it is harder for us to give money to the poor. The people who should really be helping should be millionaires. They spend outrageous amounts of money for clothing, houses, and cars while other people can't afford a loaf of bread. So my point is if you can spare a little bit of money to help the poor, you should do so generously.
ReplyDeleteThis is the opinion of the 99%. The rich get richer and the disparity is only getting constricting on the lower populace. But instead of helping others with their money, they all choose a more selfish path. I think we should force rich people to watch those commercials of african poverty.
DeleteSinger says that we should give as much as we have to the poor. To Singer, it is not right one person to live a life of gross excess while others are starving and homeless. I agree that many people out there do not do as much as they can or sometimes even anything to help the poor. The wealth distribution in the country is grossly out of proportion and if everyone did a little bit more then perhaps we could achieve more of a balance. However, if we take Singer's belief to an extreme and every last cent we have to the poor then we run the risk of becoming poor ourselves. If we bankrupt ourselves in order to help the poor and then become poor ourself the problem isn't really solved but rather increased.
ReplyDeleteYour right! I never thought of it that way. That would just be a vicious circular pattern. By everyone giving their all to the poor then the poor would become the wealthy and the wealthy would become the poor. Then the cycle would just constantly repeat itself!
Deletei agree with your statement. There must be a balance between giving and not giving. We wouldn't then put ourselves into a tight spot
DeletePersonally, I think we need more people like Singer because I believe he has reached the top of Maslow's hierarchy of needs that being transcendence. He obviously wants the best for everyone. He believes that everyone that has more than they need to survive that they should pass it down to others in need. I have seen it all from the poorest to the richest. Call me out if i'm wrong but I believe about 75% of people in the world that are rich either inherited or married into that money. Most people that are successful had one of the many stepping stones it takes to become that way. Whether that be both parents or one parent having a lump sum of money. Being poor in America is like playing monopoly with all of the properties but one owned and that one still has a chance to be landed on. So yes, I completely agree with his argument. We are a society that focuses on vanity aspects of life and I can't say I don't because it is our way of life. If we each had one million dollars given to us in our life time we would barely be able to spend it all if we invested right. In conclusion, I think he has the right idea of where we need to head as a nation or we will continue to have people dying of hunger and people killing for money to feed their own.
ReplyDeleteIf we all had one million dollars, the prices of everuthing would inflate so much the value of a dollar would decrease to next to nothing. The sad truth is we need poor people like me to sustain economic balance. But if the rich keep getting rocher the economy will be less like a see saw and more like a hiant rock on one side and a baby on tje other.
DeleteI believe that the people who don't have the opportunity to make a living and their is no hope for their future should be helped as much as possible. I understand there are poor people in the United States, but here we have way more opportunity than other countries. I also agree that I would want to help myself survive before somebody else. People who are multimillionaires could afford to help somebody who is really in need not just lazy and don't want to better themselves. There is the other side of the coin as well. Millionaires earned everything they have and can do with their money as they please. I think we can do more for the poor with donations, food, and shelter. I know if I was less fortunate or on the down and out than I would greatly appreciate a hot meal and a roof over my head.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more with your post! There is definitely much more opportunity here in America than there is in other countries, so that just shows in itself that some people are just plain lazy. Not all people, but there are some that rely on others for assistance. Do they not realize that they get their help because other people do what they don't want to do? People work hard for what they had. It is possible that a mulitimillionaire could have started on the bottom as well, but they worked their way up with hard work.
DeleteI agree we do need to help the poor out any way we can. People can be selfish and need to think about other people. I think the millionaires that were poor at one time or more rounded. They understand the struggles and are willing to help out more.
DeleteSinger believes that we should give to the poor as much as we can. As much as I think it is good to do good things for others I really don't like this. People can be poor for different reasons, they could actually have a job that doesn't pay well with a family they need to support. Others are poor because they don't have a job, don't want a job, don't have the motivation to go get one or work for their money, and are content to live a life mooching off others. Now don't get me wrong, I agree with giving to the poor who do truly deserve it, but not so much that you have only what you need to get by. I see it from a workers perspective that, hey, I've worked hard for the money I have and the things I've earned why should I just give that away? Id be willing to give somethings to those who really do need it but if they don't why is it my responsibility to get you through? In life you get what you put in, and if you don't put anything in how is that fair for those who do work hard everyday and still barely make it by? So I guess my feelings are sure, give to the poor who really deserve it, otherwise as unfortunate as it may be, why give away what you worked hard to earn to those that don't?
ReplyDeleteI agree completely with you. I think the reason they are poor matters more then the simple fact that they are poor. But when the government takes taxes from paychecks to fund things like welfare, they don't much care why the person needs it.
DeleteGoing off that, We have talked about government programs in the government class im taking this semester and he talked about how programs like welfare, disability, and the like are misused and abused so badly. He used examples such as people whose unemployment has run out and it is a last resort. And what is really upsetting is that these people who don't really need it are taking money away from those who actually need it, and taking it away from a government that could easily use those funds elsewhere.
DeleteI wouldn't want my money going to people who don't want to work and make an attempt to better their lives either. And I also agree with giving to those who do need help, but not giving away every last extra cent I have. The way I see it, if I were to give all of my extra money that I could spare, what would happen if an unexpected emergency came up? This is another reason why I like donating clothes, and if I can spare it, food, to those who really need the help.
DeleteSinger believes its morally right to help poor people who are struggling as much as possible. Yes, this would be the moral thing todo, but I know way to many people who don't work hard trying to better their own lives. I don't agree with enabling the people that depend on the government or other people before they go get a job. Personally I would not donate to someone living in the United States because i see opportunity. I would much rather give to people suffering in Africa and other 3rd world countries. I would not donate to people that already have the mind set that they can live without working if it weren't for the government already taking it out of taxes. I'm a hard worker when it comes to making money for my family and I shouldn't have to provide for someone else's to.
ReplyDeleteAMEN! I believe there are people out there that legitimately need the assistance, and those are the ones I am more willing to help out. I work hard for my money, like you, so why can't they? Sometimes there are physical disabilities that prevent them from doing so, and that's understandable. The people that stand alongside the side of the road begging for money? No, that irritates me. They could be out looking for places that are hiring and filling out applications and earning the money themselves instead of simply begging for it. That's the easy way out and someone should inform them that life is not easy.
DeleteI think it is unfair to lump all of America's poor into the category of moochers. It is easy to see only those that exploit the system and forget that there are those that truly need it. What about the man working 60 hours a week at minimum wage who can barely support his family? Is he not in need of help and working harder than those that have vastly more than he does. Why is it those that sit in desk all day rake in the dough while those that break their backs land in middle to lower class? Don't get me wrong, I understand that our poor have it much better than the poor in third world countries but that doesn't mean that we should ignore the imbalance of wealth within our own country.
DeleteSinger believes that we need to do what we can in order to help the poor get back on their feet and out of poverty. I do agree with him to a certain extent. If someone NEEDS a helping hand and we have some extra money to give, why not help them out? If we were in their situation we would hope that they do the same thing for us. I emphasized the word “needs” because I feel that there would be people that take advantage of the help and pretend that they need the help when they really don’t. If they physically can’t work or have some condition that prevents them from doing so, then those are truly the people that need help, not those who are perfectly able to fend for themselves but are just too lazy.
ReplyDeleteYes ma'am! Giving my hard earned money to the undeserved would be my only issue with Singers theory. I believe that there are well deserved people that need help in the United states and other countries. For example the starving children in Africa clearly need our help! However if you think about the debt we have going on with our government then I understand why the government itself doesn't donate any, because we have none to offer. How can we give to others when we may need it ourselves. Unfortunately I think there will always be a poor (bottom) class of the status chain, however I hope for all that poverty will one day cease to exist. :)
DeleteI agree. Although I may not give lots of money away, I always donate a bit to groups like the American Heart Association, or to my brother in his fundraisers for MD, cancer benefits/research, etc. in hopes that my money helps someone who needs it. Another thing I do that is not monetary is give blood whenever the Red Cross has a blood drive in town. I am thankful to be so blessed and healthy, and i think that if I give just a bit of money, or a pint of blood to someone who needs its more than I do, and hopefully someone who deserves it.
DeleteSinger believes that it is morally right to donate to those less fortunate than us. Most of us are already struggling as it is though. I think there are better ways to help them out. Like make more jobs so they can earn their money like the rest of us do. Maybe even have cheap/free birth control so they don't keep having kids when they can't even take care of themselves. I donate to special needs and children because that is something they didn't do to themselves and they can't help that. I was taught that if you want something, you work for it. I was also taught that if you can help others, do it. But I personally can't send a bunch of money to the poor because I need my money to survive. I understand that there are people out there that can't help their situation and I have no problem helping them out when I have some extra cash.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree with you more. Times are tough out there and many of us can't afford to spare even a few dollars. I think that donating clothes, food, and warm blankets are good alternative ways to help the truly needy out, as well as providing shelters. I, too, was raised with the 'work for what you want/need' ethic as well as the 'help those you can' attitude, and I swear by them. I work hard for my paycheck and I usually spend most of it on gasoline and groceries for myself and my family; the rest stays in the bank for car insurance. It's rather interesting seeing how much I can make sometimes not even $80 a week stretch. But, this also means that I can't send tons of money to the poor, so I try to help out by donating clothes or giving up my time in some other way.
DeleteSinger says that we should help out those less fortunate than ourselves. I believe that if people are working, but their jobs don't afford them the ability to live, then they should get all the help we can give. However, if they would just squander the money/aide on things like drugs, then we should instead get them into a rehab. program. If a person doesn't have a job, or isn't looking for one, then I feel like they don't really deserve any help, because they aren't trying to help themselves.
ReplyDeleteSinger's views are all too familar in this day and age. It's the classic help everyone around the world riff. I feel that this aubject has been tread on so thoroughly to us as children through school, commercials, infomercials, pamphlets, and a slew of other things that we either become one of two things. We either get immune to it all, a slow numbing to ignore all the suffering in other countries as well as our own, or the oppisite, which is to give up everything to help the less fortunate. While there are some people who are in the middle and give to charities often for altruistic reasons, i feel we are predominantly one or the other. We are so desensitized to the tragedies of everyday life in third world countries because we wouldn't be able to function in our own lives with a clean conscience if we weren't.
ReplyDeleteSinger believes we should give to the poor as much as we have or as much as possible. I don't believe in this. I feel like we all got through barriers to get where we are today and people who didn't do that shouldn't be given my hard worked and earned money. If the person is there because of a disability they have or a mental disorder then I would be more lenient towards that. However, I wouldn't look down upon someone who didn't give as much or didn't give anything at all.
ReplyDeleteSing argues that we take for granted our way of life. We think that because we don't have every single thing we desire, we are poor or not well off. I beg too differ, the way we live is much better than the people in third world countries. I have been to Haiti and seen what truly poor people look like. We have so much more than what they do that I agree with Singer, we should be obligated to help them in anyway we can. There are people who will say that we should worry about the people in our own country first and sure we probably should. But this isn't just the select few out of many that need help, it is the whole country that needs help because there are very few that have enough to survive. We don't even need to donate money, even donating clothes, shoes, or going down and putting time into helping them is enough. Although I don't think it should be required of a person who is not already well off to donate money, time, ect. that they don't have.
ReplyDeleteThis is such a huge topic to tackle; the great inequality in our world. It's an issue that is so close to my heart. This topic is a good argument start and prompts we as students to think. I totally agree with Peter Singer's idea even though I know that some people may not agree with this idea. I personally thinks that we cannot put a price tag on human's life but if we do the value of human life will worth a million price. Aren't every human being suffering the same? So if suffering doesn’t count more than anyone else, it means that we should give or share part of our wealth to alleviate that suffering because there are so many people in the world who suffer more than we do. To ask how much we should we give, I think how much you donate doesn't matter as long as you follow you duty by helping. I bet million of people live on no more than two dollars a day. So we need to know that all donations count, no matter how big or small they all add up. One single dollar, which is in modern and development countries has very low value, could feed a child or someone in need for the day. “A dollar means more to a beggar than to a millionaire.” I think the point is that a relatively small sum of money can have a huge effect on the lives of those who live in poverty. So I hope that we can give our help and hands to those who in need.
ReplyDelete