His article almost discourages people to give money because of how unrealistic and accusatory it is, in my opinion. Maybe his goal was to create such an unrealistic set of standards for how people should give money that it would just get people thinking? By going to the extreme and saying that people should donate everything not spent on necessities, maybe people will feel okay donating just those $1000 to "save five children." Of course, you don't know where your $1000 will go. Maybe it will pay someone's 500K+ salary, or maybe it really will go help some suffering children somewhere. Anyway, I'm not trying to diss donating to charity. I think it's incredibly admirable to give away money to help those in need (and there are a whole lot of people in need!), because humans are selfish and giving up your hard-earned dough can be challenging. What isn't admirable is making people into hypothetical child-murderers in order to get them to give up half of their cash.
Also- I don't think Singer ever mentions the idea of donating your time instead of your money to help impoverished people.
Also- I don't think Singer ever mentions the idea of donating your time instead of your money to help impoverished people.
No comments:
Post a Comment