What major claims? 1)Rather than donating a to charity one should participate in an institution that tend to people in need. 2)One's concern is usually themselves first with the capabilities, rights, and obligations, while the distant poor comes second. 3)By supporting the poor you can enable them to help themselves, and to engage in markets that can also benefit themselves and even the people that are well-off.
What evidence? The evidence that is being used in this section is: 1)Rawls 2)Marx 3) Quote cited from Ray Monk This evidence makes the writer more credible.
1. What lists? The list of suggestions that Kuper gives for his argument of donating money and sacrificing is not the problem for world poverty. The solution is making sure that people forward their efforts into consumption, production, activism, and aid. 2. What do these lists do? This lists makes its easier for the audience to understand Kuper's argument and how his differs from Singer's. Also it gives examples for his argument on redirecting "resources and energy to roles and institutions" within labor.
Response to Ivan Gonzalez, Ivan, under the Kuper's fourth suggestion of relieving poverty, he discusses the International Labour Organization and Grameen Bank projects and do you know why or what they are? International Labour Organization is a specialized agency of the United Nations system which focus on improving labour conditions and living conditions in third world countries. Grameen Bank projects is a micro finance organization that offers small loans to poor countries without collateral. If you know his background, he is actually the president of LeapFrog Investments which bring insurance to the poor. He explains that many people in impoverished countries should have insurance which they can absolutely afford to insure their health, their crops, and their life while lifting them out of poverty. He concentrates on Africa and Asia mainly because of the population. Keep in mind that there are about ,give or take, one billion people who are in poverty in Africa and Asia. Imagine if one person purchase one dollar of micro insurance at least every year, i think you can do the rest of the math. He clearly states in one of his interviews that the amount of money for African and Asian are different which makes their values and meaning worth more than what it seems to Americans. This is a true fact because of the currency exchange rate. American dollar worths more than Asian currency and African currency according to the economic market. Do you think this is a genius idea? and do you think he is advertising or hinting about his company?
Peremptory:leaving no opportunity for denial or refusal
the main idea that is evident is that Kuper suggests that SInger's approach to poverty is not acccurate. Kuper suggests that the way of helping impoverished countries is by better aiming money coming in to things that are needed in such countries. Also, Kuper suggests that its not only about better targeting the money, it is also about the government taking the reigns of their countries. IF better cooperation between those helping occurs, then not only will the benefit economically, those being helped will benefit as well.
What does this section do to support Kuper's argument/alternatives?- Conclusion
This section, Kuper addresses the change that needs to come. Instead of charity or donations, he gives a couple examples and is a little more pragmatic than the rest of his article:
He gives the suggestions of consumption, production, activism, and aid. He offers these ideas and contrasts it from Singer. Kuper says, "Advocating a donation to Oxfam might conceivably in some contexts be the best means to nobles ends, but this is by no means a foregone conclusion and universal remedy" (83). Kuper argues that a donation will do more harm than if one would spend that money to advance the economy in an impoverished country. He uses Rawl and Marx as evidence.
Response to Katarina, One of the evidences that supported Kuper's claim which you have mentioned is the quote cited from Ray Monk. Why is this source credible? Well, first of all Ludwig Wittgenstein is an Austrian-born philosopher. He loves analytic philosophy of logic and mathematics. He is known for the "picture theory" and was mostly recognized in "Philosophical Investigations" which he critiques traditional philosophy to a whole new level. At the end of Andrew Kuper's conclusion, he uses Wittgenstein quote stating, "If someone tells me he has bought the outfit...I am not impressed until I see what he has done with it" (84). I personally have done some research on Peter Singer and found out that in one of his interview with Dan Rather, he actually admitted that he did not live up to what he claimed. Dan Rather confronted Singer that he did not practice what he preach because he did live in a nice apartment and he took trips back to his home in Australia. Between this interview and Wittgenstein's comment, i think that Andrew Kuper knows all along that Singer does not even live up to his ideal of saving the world. The way that Kuper used Wittgenstein is genius because it shows the audience that he is a knowledgeable professional by finding a quote from a well-respected philosopher to support his claim. Even his format and appropriate vocabularies to describe Wittgenstein's tone like "wry" and "acuity" gives the audience a sense that he is reliable.
7 comments:
What major claims?
1)Rather than donating a to charity one should participate in an institution that tend to people in need.
2)One's concern is usually themselves first with the capabilities, rights, and obligations, while the distant poor comes second.
3)By supporting the poor you can enable them to help themselves, and to engage in markets that can also benefit themselves and even the people that are well-off.
What evidence?
The evidence that is being used in this section is:
1)Rawls
2)Marx
3) Quote cited from Ray Monk
This evidence makes the writer more credible.
1. What lists?
The list of suggestions that Kuper gives for his argument of donating money and sacrificing is not the problem for world poverty. The solution is making sure that people forward their efforts into consumption, production, activism, and aid.
2. What do these lists do?
This lists makes its easier for the audience to understand Kuper's argument and how his differs from Singer's. Also it gives examples for his argument on redirecting "resources and energy to roles and institutions" within labor.
Response to Ivan Gonzalez,
Ivan, under the Kuper's fourth suggestion of relieving poverty, he discusses the International Labour Organization and Grameen Bank projects and do you know why or what they are? International Labour Organization is a specialized agency of the United Nations system which focus on improving labour conditions and living conditions in third world countries. Grameen Bank projects is a micro finance organization that offers small loans to poor countries without collateral. If you know his background, he is actually the president of LeapFrog Investments which bring insurance to the poor. He explains that many people in impoverished countries should have insurance which they can absolutely afford to insure their health, their crops, and their life while lifting them out of poverty. He concentrates on Africa and Asia mainly because of the population. Keep in mind that there are about ,give or take, one billion people who are in poverty in Africa and Asia. Imagine if one person purchase one dollar of micro insurance at least every year, i think you can do the rest of the math. He clearly states in one of his interviews that the amount of money for African and Asian are different which makes their values and meaning worth more than what it seems to Americans. This is a true fact because of the currency exchange rate. American dollar worths more than Asian currency and African currency according to the economic market. Do you think this is a genius idea? and do you think he is advertising or hinting about his company?
what words/ideas do you need to know?
purportedly: reputed or claimed
Ineradicably:not completely removed
Peremptory:leaving no opportunity for denial or refusal
the main idea that is evident is that Kuper suggests that SInger's approach to poverty is not acccurate. Kuper suggests that the way of helping impoverished countries is by better aiming money coming in to things that are needed in such countries. Also, Kuper suggests that its not only about better targeting the money, it is also about the government taking the reigns of their countries. IF better cooperation between those helping occurs, then not only will the benefit economically, those being helped will benefit as well.
-Sergio Camacho
What does this section do to support Kuper's argument/alternatives?- Conclusion
This section, Kuper addresses the change that needs to come. Instead of charity or donations, he gives a couple examples and is a little more pragmatic than the rest of his article:
He gives the suggestions of consumption, production, activism, and aid. He offers these ideas and contrasts it from Singer. Kuper says, "Advocating a donation to Oxfam might conceivably in some contexts be the best means to nobles ends, but this is by no means a foregone conclusion and universal remedy" (83). Kuper argues that a donation will do more harm than if one would spend that money to advance the economy in an impoverished country. He uses Rawl and Marx as evidence.
Elijah Auer
Mary Mayout
Response to Katarina,
One of the evidences that supported Kuper's claim which you have mentioned is the quote cited from Ray Monk. Why is this source credible?
Well, first of all Ludwig Wittgenstein is an Austrian-born philosopher. He loves analytic philosophy of logic and mathematics. He is known for the "picture theory" and was mostly recognized in "Philosophical Investigations" which he critiques traditional philosophy to a whole new level. At the end of Andrew Kuper's conclusion, he uses Wittgenstein quote stating, "If someone tells me he has bought the outfit...I am not impressed until I see what he has done with it" (84).
I personally have done some research on Peter Singer and found out that in one of his interview with Dan Rather, he actually admitted that he did not live up to what he claimed. Dan Rather confronted Singer that he did not practice what he preach because he did live in a nice apartment and he took trips back to his home in Australia.
Between this interview and Wittgenstein's comment, i think that Andrew Kuper knows all along that Singer does not even live up to his ideal of saving the world. The way that Kuper used Wittgenstein is genius because it shows the audience that he is a knowledgeable professional by finding a quote from a well-respected philosopher to support his claim. Even his format and appropriate vocabularies to describe Wittgenstein's tone like "wry" and "acuity" gives the audience a sense that he is reliable.
Post a Comment