The ethicist Singer uses hypothetical examples to show how most people who live in comfort do not give as much as they should to those who are less fortunate. He argues that instead of enjoying extra comforts in our lives, such as going out to dinner, we could use the same money to help starving children. For the most part, I agree with Singer’s ethics. I believe that people who live in extreme comfort should use some of their extra savings to help those that are much less fortunate than them, but to what extent? At what point is it okay to enjoy going to see a movie or treat yourself to a nice dinner?
The New York times articles states that Singer gives one fifth of his earnings to help others in need. Ethically, I believe that everyone should feel obligated to make some sort of effort to help others but volunteering to help out at homeless shelters or packaging food to send abroad can be just as helpful as donating money. A problem in our society is that many people do not feel any obligation to help others that they have never even met before. Perhaps if schools encouraged, or required, volunteer hours of every student more people would know how to help aside from just donating money.
I like that you chose to address solutions rather than just debate the validity of the statement. I do, however, think it is ironic that the man who wrote the article is giving only 1/5 of his wealth to charities. While I'm not good at math, this doesn't seem to be as much as he was saying we should be giving...
ReplyDeleteIt's true that monetary donations aren't the only way to help the needy, and that other forms of charity are equally, if not more, valuable. I think that avoiding donation and practicing other forms of charity instead is a valid choice, since it's also true that some charities use some of their donations for greedy purposes.
ReplyDelete