Growing up in Oak Park and River Forest, we have all been able to live privileged lives. Most, if not all, of us have our phones, we go to a school with boundless opportunities and we learn from teachers that don't just teach us in the classroom, but also provide us with wisdom and knowledge that we can use in the future. It's also easy to see that not all of us have grown up in the same way or have been given the same opportunities, so it's hard to talk about and tackle privilege in such a local sense. Singer suggests that we, the privileged, must give up all that we can to provide for those less fortunate than ourselves. In theory, this idea sounds perfectly doable. However, in reality, it seems a bit too good to be true.
I have a job working minimum wage and I enjoy being able to cash in a paycheck that mainly just helps me pay for things that I do with friends or on my own. That said, do I really need to go out to dinner with friends on the weekend, or buy coffee during lunch? Probably not, but they are things that I really enjoy and that help me get through my day or week. I also like volunteering and try to give spare cash to homeless people that I often see while I'm out and about.
Overall, I think that having too little to make ends meet is problematic, but if everyone is suffering what's the point of anything. I think Singer's theory could connect back to The Stranger (but then again, doesn't everything?), maybe to exist is to suffer and by giving everything we can to others makes their suffering just a bit more bearable to endure. Would we all be better off with a lot less? If we shouldn't give everything we have to others what is the right amount? Should we feel guilty taking things for ourselves when other people have a greater need for them? And lastly, how does it feel to take things from another when we really need them?
I liked what you wrote about making other's lives more bearable because clearly you can't fix everything but you can help to make some improvements. In regards to the end of your post, I think it's probably impossible to find what the true perfect amount is because its so subjective. Overall great post, I liked how you looked at both sides of the argument and used your own life experiences.
ReplyDeleteI agree and think that Singer's approach is a little extreme, because splurging a little on yourself every once in a while also helps keep us happy and make our own inevitable suffering bearable. What I think is the most important part of Singer's argument, which you also highlighted, is giving enough to make others' suffering bearable. Everyone giving away everything "extra" is not realistic, but being charitable and helping others to the extent that you can and the extent that provides them with a meaningful difference, is an important thing for everyone to incorporate into their daily lives.
ReplyDelete