Let's all face the facts: Singer really hit us with guilt. We all know we are so privileged and lucky to be living in such a wonderful place as Oak Park or River Forest, but reading Singer really reiterated this privilege by explaining that our luxuries should be dispersed to the people who really need it. Whether you completely side with Singer, or whether you completely don't, I personally believe that some of his argument is valid, while the other part is not.
Singer explains that those privileged enough should give back to the poor. I truly believe this is the case. For example, a non-forprofit organization may be giving families food and shelter, but this organization cannot do it alone. Instead, they are funded by outside resources that provide them the money and means to continue their mission. Without people's ability to give back to those in need, the world would see an even bigger economic and social gap than the one present today.
Yet, I don't completely understand Singer's logic in his argument. In order to progress as a society, we need money. Money fuels our research, our investments into start-up companies, and our ability to provide for others. For example, if we as privileged gave out all our extra money (i.e.: savings, investments, etc.), we would eventually run out of money for ourselves. Then, who would help who? Everyone would fall into the inability to sustain themselves. In addition, if people gave all their extra money to those in need, how would our progression as a society become affected by it? Who would pay for the research materials needed to advance into things such as medicine and technology?
While Singer makes a compelling argument, and his ethos radiates guilt, I think that it is important to fully consider the effects that Singer's argument ultimately entails for not only ourselves, but for society as a whole. I truly believe that there needs to be a healthy balance between providing for the progression of our society and our ability to give back to those in need.
I really think that your argument about "who will help who?" is very relevant/valid. If the privileged were to give away all the money we possibly could to help others, there would be no way to move our society forward.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with your argument! I wrote about a similar topic in my blog, how guilt was such a big part of Singer's argument and I also did not completely understand Singer's argument. I agree that there should be a healthy balance of progression and giving back to others because it would unrealistic and unproductive to do 100% of one or the other.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, love the title. Also I completely agree with you! The healthy balance between providing for progression and giving back is key to an overall stable community. I just wish it was so simple to have everyone in the world on the same page about it!
ReplyDeleteThe title totally hooked me! On another post I commented on I also brought up the need to find a balance between taking for the betterment of ourselves and giving back to help others. I hope that as more information is discovered and as the world progresses as a whole, it will be easier to decide what we really need not only to survive but also to be happy.
ReplyDelete