After reading Singer's article, I was struck by the simple rationality of his argument. Each point he made was based on what it takes for one person to survive-- the bare minimum. He critiques members of the UN for donating money below the recommended amount of .7% of a given country's GDP. I understood Singer's arguments and logic. It seems good. It seems nice. But how realistic is it?
There must be a way to reconcile a charitable and, by Singer's logic, just lifestyle with a person's everyday happiness. Although living using an absolute minimum amount of resources may be the correct and fair thing to do, it is entirely unlikely that anyone of greater means would consider doing so unless it yielded general happiness or contentedness. Brooks stresses the importance of intrinsic value of one's work. There must be a way to balance the intrinsic and extrinsic value of one's life and work.
I agree, it is not very realistic that people would live using the absolute minimum of resources for charitable purposes, no matter how noble. Ideally there would be a balance between this and the minimal amount of money that some people give to charity.
ReplyDeleteI thought something similar. No one is going to want to live with only necessities. However, it is still important to remember to donate to humanitarian organization if you can afford it. Just not to an extreme like Singer suggest.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I was surprised when he chastised those that give 10% of their income, which is a very large chunk to just give away.
ReplyDelete