When I began to read "The Singer Solution to World Poverty", I had the initial reaction of kind of distancing myself from Singer and his ideas, but as I got further into the article, the more I was intrigued and the more that I began to see, accept, and analyse his reasoning. Although I believe that his comparison between choosing to not pull a lever to save a child at the expense of a prized possession and not giving at least 1/5 of your income to help those who are impoverished was a bit stretched, I understood the point that he was getting across through that use of hyperbole.
I think that donating to charities is important, but I think that there are also different ways to help others. While I understand Singer’s point when he said that a family only needs around $30,000 to take care of all necessities therefore, families should donate all of their other income, it is extremely unrealistic and improbable that it would ever happen. One thing that this statement kind of reminded me of is this comic that was in the New Yorker when I was little. My family likes to keep comics and put them on the fridge, and one that’s been on fridge probably as long as I can remember is a giant building that says ‘wants’ and a much smaller one next to it that says ‘needs’. It’s always served as a reminder to me that while treating myself every once in awhile, helping others and ignoring some wants for the benefit of others is necessary.
When I finished reading, I began to think about the reasons that Singer would make the article so extreme, and I came up with one that I believe is a good argument. I think that in some ways, the extremes, even if they are exaggerated a bit, are necessary to make people see both the profound issue and how everyone can truly make a difference. In AP Gov, we’re talking about political participation and how the U.S. has such a low participation rate, and I think these two relate, once more people start to get involved and knowledgeable, change will begin to show on a state and even national level.
Relating back to suffering and The Tragedy of King Lear, I agree with many people that have posted already that have said that suffering is too commonly referred to as a negative thing and that it should be analyses more carefully. In addition, I agree that suffering is relative and that no one can truly compare their suffering to that of another. Everyone reacts differently, and even if we remain as open minded and attentive as we can, suffering is something that I think is practically impossible to compare. I really enjoyed reading the excerpt of Frankl and the article about Singer and I think they opened my eyes.
When you point out that it is unrealistic and improbable that people will donate all their income but $30,000 to charity, I couldn't agree more. In fact, Singer didn't convince me to donate any more money than I already am, and I doubt most students who read it will donate more in the coming months either. Humans are inherently lazy, so it shouldn't be up to individual humans how much each person gives to charity. Instead, a organized, more efficient body (something like...government?) should collect a little bit of money from everyone (something like...taxes?) and redistribute it to those in need. Problem solved!
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed you're perspective on Singer's article. I really liked how you touched on how although Singer's article brings up extreme exaggerations, that they are necessary to pull people's attention to what he is really trying to say. I also liked how you have pulled examples from your everyday life, it helps bring his article to a more personal and real outlook.
ReplyDeleteI really like this! I agree with many of the things you say: one's suffering cannot be compared to another's and your take of Singer's article. I like your AP Gov connection, too. As I also took that class, I totally agree with your argument and I think it is interesting how you connected the two concepts.
ReplyDelete