What evidence? What does this evidence do? -Even though Kuper doesn't agree with the idea of Marxism he agrees with an aspect of the ideology, which gives him the upper hand because he is able to find common ground with his opposing view. -Kuper mentions the aid agencies that were meant to bring safety in Rwanda, but actually made conditions even more dangerous. A similar piece of evidence he uses points out how the "food relief" action that occurred in the 70s, prevented agriculutrual growth in underdeveloped countries. Both these pieces of evidence are effective because they support his argument that there needs to be some form of political structure when helping impoverished countries; NGOs are not enough.
What lists? – What do these lists do? Kuper does not use any lists in this section.
What words/ideas do you need to know?
Kuper uses the term "Neoliberal," which is a modified form of liberalism tending to favor free-market capitalism. Another term readers may be unfamiliar with is "quasi-calvinist." Quasi means partial or not entirely and calvanism is a protestant denomination. In other words the term means partial to a protestant belief but not entirely in agreement NGO-non-government organization
Claims: Near the end of the first paragraph, "telling the bourgeoisie to be more charitable as individual actors is unlikely to produce deep changes." This is basically saying that only telling the rich to give their money is not going to get anywhere, leading into the claim of the invisible hand made in the 3rd paragraph, after it showed how intervening in certain situations causing things to go wrong, and as he says that, "the well-intentioned agent focusing on his or her lone action may well do more harm than good."
What does this section do to support kuper’s argument/alternatives?
-Kuper introduces Karl Marx in his article to lead his argument in a better solution to poverty than that of singer. Marx had a belief that in order to benefit everyone it’s required to have a stable government. Kuper describes the different possibilities of how the aid can help but there are potentials that hurt. However, Kuper questions if it really makes a difference if we give aid to these countries that don’t really have a well stable country. He then leads to give examples of certain situations of aid that in the end did more damage then expected based on the stability. Next Kuper states that in order to get the best out of aid to help other countries they need a good government and market compared to the NGO that distribute the aid to the poor. Then ends by saying that if him and singer are trying to do something about poverty, then approach it the right away by political philosophy. Kuper ends this chapter in this way for him to explain in his next chapter of what political philosophy can do for global poverty.
Response to Connor's Blog, I noticed that you did not mention the worst case scenarios that Kuper compares with Shakespeare's King Lear on the Heath, or Titus Andronicus; however, I dont blame you at all for not acknowledge it. I will give you a quick explanation to why he has mentioned Shakespeare. Shakespeare's King Lear on the Heath is about a king and his three daughters. Before stepping down his thrown, the king asks each of his three daughters to express their love to him. The first two daughters tell him they love him more than anything in the world which makes him extremely happy but the third daughter bluntly and truthfully answers that she loves him like a daughter loves her father, nothing more, nothing less. King Lear was furious and banished the third daughter from the castle. Long story short, King Lear divides the kingdom to the first two daughters who claim to love him more than anything. The two sisters then mistreated King Lear when kicked him out of their kingdom. Regretting his decision, King Lear reunited with his third daughter and apologized to her. At the end everybody died. Titus Andronicus is Shakespeare's first and most violent and bloodiest revenge play. I have a youtube video for you to check out about this play which presents less than a minute so check it out (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqIekDwgq0Q). Going back to Andrew Kuper, I was a little shocked when I found out the plot of these two plays because the conclusion for it was deaths and blood. Is he saying that death can come to them? He definitely has made his point with those two most violent examples from Shakespeare.
5 comments:
What evidence? What does this evidence do?
-Even though Kuper doesn't agree with the idea of Marxism he agrees with an aspect of the ideology, which gives him the upper hand because he is able to find common ground with his opposing view.
-Kuper mentions the aid agencies that were meant to bring safety in Rwanda, but actually made conditions even more dangerous. A similar piece of evidence he uses points out how the "food relief" action that occurred in the 70s, prevented agriculutrual growth in underdeveloped countries. Both these pieces of evidence are effective because they support his argument that there needs to be some form of political structure when helping impoverished countries; NGOs are not enough.
What lists? – What do these lists do?
Kuper does not use any lists in this section.
What words/ideas do you need to know?
Kuper uses the term "Neoliberal," which is a modified form of liberalism tending to favor free-market capitalism.
Another term readers may be unfamiliar with is "quasi-calvinist." Quasi means partial or not entirely and calvanism is a protestant denomination. In other words the term means partial to a protestant belief but not entirely in agreement
NGO-non-government organization
Claims:
Near the end of the first paragraph, "telling the bourgeoisie to be more charitable as individual actors is unlikely to produce deep changes." This is basically saying that only telling the rich to give their money is not going to get anywhere, leading into the claim of the invisible hand made in the 3rd paragraph, after it showed how intervening in certain situations causing things to go wrong, and as he says that, "the well-intentioned agent focusing on his or her lone action may well do more harm than good."
What does this section do to support kuper’s argument/alternatives?
-Kuper introduces Karl Marx in his article to lead his argument in a better solution to poverty than that of singer. Marx had a belief that in order to benefit everyone it’s required to have a stable government. Kuper describes the different possibilities of how the aid can help but there are potentials that hurt. However, Kuper questions if it really makes a difference if we give aid to these countries that don’t really have a well stable country. He then leads to give examples of certain situations of aid that in the end did more damage then expected based on the stability. Next Kuper states that in order to get the best out of aid to help other countries they need a good government and market compared to the NGO that distribute the aid to the poor. Then ends by saying that if him and singer are trying to do something about poverty, then approach it the right away by political philosophy. Kuper ends this chapter in this way for him to explain in his next chapter of what political philosophy can do for global poverty.
Fidencio Romero
Response to Connor's Blog,
I noticed that you did not mention the worst case scenarios that Kuper compares with Shakespeare's King Lear on the Heath, or Titus Andronicus; however, I dont blame you at all for not acknowledge it. I will give you a quick explanation to why he has mentioned Shakespeare. Shakespeare's King Lear on the Heath is about a king and his three daughters. Before stepping down his thrown, the king asks each of his three daughters to express their love to him. The first two daughters tell him they love him more than anything in the world which makes him extremely happy but the third daughter bluntly and truthfully answers that she loves him like a daughter loves her father, nothing more, nothing less. King Lear was furious and banished the third daughter from the castle. Long story short, King Lear divides the kingdom to the first two daughters who claim to love him more than anything. The two sisters then mistreated King Lear when kicked him out of their kingdom. Regretting his decision, King Lear reunited with his third daughter and apologized to her. At the end everybody died. Titus Andronicus is Shakespeare's first and most violent and bloodiest revenge play. I have a youtube video for you to check out about this play which presents less than a minute so check it out (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqIekDwgq0Q).
Going back to Andrew Kuper, I was a little shocked when I found out the plot of these two plays because the conclusion for it was deaths and blood. Is he saying that death can come to them? He definitely has made his point with those two most violent examples from Shakespeare.
Post a Comment