One of Singer's main arguments is that most privileged people have more money than they need, and the extra money that is not necessary for survival should be donated to help those young children living in unfortunate conditions. Instead of going out to dinner, or buying new clothes, a person should use the extra money for someone who actually really needs it, not just for a random want of their own.
Morality is a tricky word to define, especially in today's world. Morality can have so many different meanings, but in Singer's eyes, morality is helping those who are under-privileged. Morality is helping someone with the money or material objects that you don't need, and changing someone's life in some way.
Singer makes a very interesting argument, and I think that it is something that is always overlooked by people, including myself. We're always looking to have the best things, but we never give much thought to the other people who are less fortunate than us.
I agree that the way the world is, with such a huge gap between the rich and the poor, is so messed up. While I can see the good in his argument, I feel like a bunch of unforeseen problems could arise from a mandatory tax on the rich like that, as bad as that is.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with your last sentence. Sometimes, we are so wrapped up in our own worlds that we are blinded. I like Singer's argument that we should help people less fortunate than us more often. However, building on Meghan's comment, I'm not sure how the government would be able to enforce such a law without intruding on people's lifestyles.
ReplyDeleteI like your post. But, I wish you presented your own opinion on the subject. Do you agree with Singer? Or do you think his ideals are unrealistic? Are things good the way they are now? Or how should we change things?
ReplyDelete