Honestly, I don't like this kind of writing. I don't like it when authors (intentionally or not) guilt-trip me; papers that say things like: "If you don't give money to save lives, you obviously have no morals" or "You should give money -- SAVE A LIFE" just don't sit well with me. Of course, I know they're not saying it outright, and that I'm taking a very cynical view on these things. I just don't need someone I don't know telling me or implying that I'm not a very charitable person.
I did think that this person has a distinct contempt for those who buy more than what they need. In fact, I still think so, and I feel like this paper would be more convincing if he weren't denouncing more than half of the readers. Of course we feel guilty when confronted by the choice between a child's life and our own material happiness, and that we're choosing ourselves over his/her life. I don't feel like that's something we need that rubbed in our faces, though.
One thing I noticed about some of the writing is Singer's exaggeration of the bad parts of the two situations. Given, Bob did make a pretty selfish choice, which we can all look down upon as Singer "predicted," but Dora did not do what she did intentionally. The way it is phrased in one of the later paragraphs makes it seem that way, strangely enough. He says: "Unlike Dora, too, he did not mislead the child or initiate the chain of events imperiling him" (Singer, 2). It's almost as if he makes some near-unreasonable arguments/inferences from his own writing in a slightly sarcastic manner, kind of like... Okay, say someone eats your piece of cake you had sitting in the 'fridge. You would say (if you were really grumpy): "Oh, that's okay. You were just hungry -- even if it was my cake, it's okay." It makes the person who ate it feel guilty (or at least, it would make me feel guilty).
Also, I heard that AUW (Aloha United Way) actually takes 15% of each donation off the top. So if you donate $100, maybe only $85 will actually get to the people you want to help. I don't know. Maybe I'm just selfish. -___-||| I don't like the idea of that money going to people to whom it wasn't supposed to go.
I do think it is nice to give to others in need. I think it's nice that some of us do help (although I really only help when others plan it out -- and then only sometimes), because you can give someone his or her life back.
Ugh. I hate dealing with "being charitable" and things like that.
Morality is so... GRAY.
P.S. -Warning for blatant/heavy cynicism and utter disregard for politeness.-
A single, simple, all-mighty solution to world poverty? BULL. I'm sorry, but seriously? $200 per person? Even if we only have to do it once, I doubt everyone will want to pay. And then after that? We're humans. I'm sure we'd find some way to get ourselves back into debt. *pessimist*
4 comments:
I liked your opinion on "The Singer Solution to World Poverty." I wonder if Singer views himself as being charitable, as after all, he is giving us advice on how WE should be charitable, which makes him seem arrogant.
It'd be very hard for me to donate without seeing the end result, and even if I was Bob, I'd have a hard time choosing a child over an expensive car. After all, that child's life was only worth $200 right? This may seem very blunt, but I just spent an hour and a half supporting Singer's points, so it's nice to get some of my frustrations out here :).
You're absolutely right. And I don't like this kind of writing either. I thought that his article was narrow-minded and bias in all areas. What you said about AUW was an extremely valid point also, because it's so ironic that he was suggesting selflessness, and giving to these organizations, who are actually taking some of your money, and putting it in their pockets.
As a "utilitarian philosopher", he should've looked at the consequences and made decisions based on those.
Also--Is it just me or does it seem like his idea about the whole giving all your income away except for the $30,000 seem a little communist?
<3
Linz
AUW's 15% goes to pay for programs, services, and overhead--not "into their pockets." If there was no one to distribute your donation, there would be no way to give help in the first place. In other words, you can't expect people to volunteer to work for free, even though nonprofit employees work for a lot less money than the for-profit world, out of the goodness of their hearts.
Besides, AUW's overhead cost is much less than the IRS' guidelines of 25%, and much lower than the majority industry-wide.
Your cynicism may be well placed. Much of what we do for others, whether our aid is lent in terms of time or money, is misplaced or misconstrued. Thus, we are faced with the obvious question: what is the point? For each dollar we give, another two will be sucked away, into the dark abyss of bureaucracy or flat out corruption. I suppose the key to understanding our responsibility as privileged human beings is simply to continue giving as if each penny was actually feeding the child it was meant for. As long is we possess excess, as long is there is something more for us to give while still subsisting ourselves, it is our responsibility to give it. The essential questions compel us to do so: to change our unhappy world and to change how live in it. Sitting back, thinking how much this philanthropy business sucks, we must come to appreciate the plush sofa we are leaning against. We must come to appreciate the sighs of full stomachs, and the soft pillows on which we will lay our tired heads. For, somewhere, another fifteen-year old does not have what we have. And for their sake, we must continue giving.
Post a Comment