What if you could change the world? What if you could make life better for somebody? Are you obligated to act? And how much should you do?
Monday, October 10, 2011
Why Charity is Never Enough p. 74-77
What does this section do to support Kuper’s argument/alternatives
What major claims? – What does this mean?
What evidence?What does this evidence do?
What lists? – What do these lists do?
What words/ideas do you need to know?
10 comments:
Ari R.
said...
For Kupers claim of Singer's lousy analogies, he uses his own analogy as evidence to support his claim. He critics Singers hypothetical situation of choosing to save children instead of proceeding with your day. Kuper's example suggest that "if there are tons of thousands of [children] drowning everyday...people will have to give up almost any job that doesn't directly or maximally involve saving lives." (pg 74) To support Kuper's claim that there are many other values of survival, he uses a quote by Bernard Williams as evidence. This quote basically explains that there is more to life then an obligation to save chilren. We should value many other things as well such as love, work, wisdom, etc that are necessary for existence.
For Kupers claim of Singer's lousy analogies, he uses his own analogy as evidence to support his claim. He critics Singers hypothetical situation of choosing to save children instead of proceeding with your day. Kuper's example suggest that "if there are tons of thousands [children] drowning everyday...people will have to give up almost any job that doesn't directly or maximally involve saving lives." (pg 74) To support Kuper's claim that there are many other values thanm survival, he uses a quote by Bernard Williams as evidence. This quote basically explains that there is more to life then an obligation to save chilren. We should value many other things as well such as love, work, wisdom, etc that are necessary for existence.
Claims 1) People have other values such as love, work, wisdom, art, truth, social commitments, and the work we do, and should not give up vital needs because this is too much obligation. 2)The two debates of self-less and self-ish are both unhelpful because it doesn't just come down to donating "money" and there are more helpful contributions 3) How people address poverty is a matter of judgment(77). The right action is not necessarily to donate. 4) Singer's "analogies" do not address all the complexities of charity such as which resources to use and what agencies will have the best effect and how(77).
Why Charity Is Never Enough Words: Acontextual (74)– with no content Moral acontextualism (74)– without moral content Political acontextualism (74)– without political content Thought Experiment(74) - onsiders some hypothesis, theory,[1] or principle for the purpose of thinking through its consequences. Panoply (75) - a wide-ranging and impressive array or display
Alleviating (75) - to make (as suffering) more bearable Perfunctory (75) – characterized by routine Rapacious (76)- excessively grasping, greedy Ambit (76)- the bounds or limits of a place or district Plight (76) – a solemnly given pledge Ideas : 1. Kuper believes people should care about love, wisdom, work, art, truth, etc. (74-75) 2. Kuper argues the opposition of Selfish vs. selfless. (75) 3. Kuper argues against Singer’s idea that rich individuals can survive without luxuries and poor people can survive with them. (76) 4. Kuper believes “Distance matter because scale matters” and does not agree with Singer that we need to share our everyday lives with literally everyone else. (76)
"Why Charity is Never Enough," supports Kuper's arguments by providing examples that giving some sort of charity is never enough because that will not satisfy or be even close to satisfying the kinds living in poverty. One example, Kuper states that if Singer were to walk by a pond and see 50 poor kids drowning, he would skip one day of teaching a lecture at Princeton. Kuper extends that statement by adding that if were to see thousands of poor kids drowning, starving, or ill, then he would have to give up his teaching career and dedicate his time into saving these children.
Kuper claims that we should care about love work, wisdom, art, truth, and etc. Thus means that we should keep and care about dignity and significance as human beings.
Kuper elaborated on Singers claim about people being selfish and wanting to spend their money on luxuries than donate. Kuper claims that wanting to buy things on the side is not selfish, everyone deserves to treat themselves. In the end, the argument between being selfish and selfless doesn't go anywhere due to more needing to be done than simply donating money. People need to volunteer and help out those in need.
The section "Why Charity is Never Enough", supports Kupers' overall argument that Singers' proposal to end poverty is irrational by questioning Singers analogies. For example as Miguel stated on his blog, Kuper extends the statement of the 50 drowning children by adding that if he were to see thousands of poor kids drowning, starving, or ill, then he would have to give up his teaching career and dedicate his time into saving these children. This section also supports Kupers argument that Singer and his critics suffer from "political acontextualism" by providing a hypothetical example of him (Kuper) sending money to the pandemic of HIV/AIDS in South Africa but he states that his "contribution would be dwarfed and perhaps overridden by President Mbeki's bizarre and injudicious remarks that HIV does not cause AIDS"(75). this example demonstrates that Singer didn't take into consideration the politics and laws of the other countries, in other words Singer was just saying donate what you have to a charity and let them see what they do with the money.
-Bernard Williams is a moral philosopher who rejected the codification of ethics into moral theories and argued that our ethical life is too untidy to be captured by any systematic moral theory.
-President Mbeki of South Africa placed a ban on the distribution of antiretroviral drugs for HIV because he thinks that HIV does not cause AIDS
-Kleptocratic elite is a form of political and governmental corruption where the government exists to increase the personal wealth and political power of its officials and the ruling class
-OECD stands for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and their mission is to promote policies that will improve the economic and social well-being of people around the world.
-Adjudicating: to settle or determine an issue or dispute judicially
Kuper states that “Singer demands that we deal with poverty by impoverishing our lives”, however, Singer also claims we can “justify spending more on our families and the necessities…” Essentially, Kuper claims that the debate between “self-less” against “selfish” that Singer offers is unhelpful. In order to strengthen his assertion that this debate is unhelpful, Kuper provides a logical example as evidence. He provides the audience with the example of donating money to an AIDS organization in Africa, pointing out that the contribution will not be helpful due to political barriers. Eventually, he reaches his conclusion with the evidence by stating that “we may do better for South Africans by buying furniture and clothes from ethical manufacturers and manufacturers in developing countries than by donation” (75). By providing this evidence to refute Singer’s claim, Kuper reveals how eliminating luxuries from ones life can actually produce detrimental effects for individuals in poverty. This is best summarized in the statement “… when Singer says that luxuries are “unnecessary,” he is right that rich individuals can survive without them, but wrong to think that poor people can – that is, that their well-being is independent of the market in luxury goods.”
In this section “Why Charity is Never enough” by Andrew Kuper, he states various claims that disagree with Singer’s advice for saving the world. One of it being that there is more to life than just survival. Kuper points out that Singer wants us to donate all of the money we don’t need other than to live; essentially Singer wants us to donate all the money we spend on luxuries over necessities. He says that all we need is just to survive and that buying things we don’t need, luxuries, is ethically the same as watching a boy get killed by a train. Kuper combats this claim with one of his own, that there is more to life than just survival. Kuper does not believe that the solution to dealing with poverty is to impoverish ourselves as well. He does not believe we should give up other values such as work, social commitments, knowledge, and all things that may consider excess to just give away because we may not need such values to survive. All in all, the claim means that there is more to life than just being able to survive. Kuper believes survival is underrepresented and of all the other values human beings cherish. He believes if we just focus on survival than that is a selfish act that makes us ignore all other things we care about. We have more things that are significant to us as human beings other than survival. Kuper believes that we should not make ourselves poorer by donating 10% or donating beyond what we need to survive, because there is more to life than just to survive.
10 comments:
For Kupers claim of Singer's lousy analogies, he uses his own analogy as evidence to support his claim. He critics Singers hypothetical situation of choosing to save children instead of proceeding with your day. Kuper's example suggest that "if there are tons of thousands of [children] drowning everyday...people will have to give up almost any job that doesn't directly or maximally involve saving lives." (pg 74)
To support Kuper's claim that there are many other values of survival, he uses a quote by Bernard Williams as evidence. This quote basically explains that there is more to life then an obligation to save chilren. We should value many other things as well such as love, work, wisdom, etc that are necessary for existence.
For Kupers claim of Singer's lousy analogies, he uses his own analogy as evidence to support his claim. He critics Singers hypothetical situation of choosing to save children instead of proceeding with your day. Kuper's example suggest that "if there are tons of thousands [children] drowning everyday...people will have to give up almost any job that doesn't directly or maximally involve saving lives." (pg 74)
To support Kuper's claim that there are many other values thanm survival, he uses a quote by Bernard Williams as evidence. This quote basically explains that there is more to life then an obligation to save chilren. We should value many other things as well such as love, work, wisdom, etc that are necessary for existence.
Claims
1) People have other values such as love, work, wisdom, art, truth, social commitments, and the work we do, and should not give up vital needs because this is too much obligation.
2)The two debates of self-less and self-ish are both unhelpful because it doesn't just come down to donating "money" and there are more helpful contributions
3) How people address poverty is a matter of judgment(77). The right action is not necessarily to donate.
4) Singer's "analogies" do not address all the complexities of charity such as which resources to use and what agencies will have the best effect and how(77).
Why Charity Is Never Enough
Words:
Acontextual (74)– with no content
Moral acontextualism (74)– without moral content
Political acontextualism (74)– without political content
Thought Experiment(74) - onsiders some hypothesis, theory,[1] or principle for the purpose of thinking through its consequences.
Panoply (75) - a wide-ranging and impressive array or display
Alleviating (75) - to make (as suffering) more bearable
Perfunctory (75) – characterized by routine
Rapacious (76)- excessively grasping, greedy
Ambit (76)- the bounds or limits of a place or district
Plight (76) – a solemnly given pledge
Ideas :
1. Kuper believes people should care about love, wisdom, work, art, truth, etc. (74-75)
2. Kuper argues the opposition of Selfish vs. selfless. (75)
3. Kuper argues against Singer’s idea that rich individuals can survive without luxuries and poor people can survive with them. (76)
4. Kuper believes “Distance matter because scale matters” and does not agree with Singer that we need to share our everyday lives with literally everyone else. (76)
"Why Charity is Never Enough," supports Kuper's arguments by providing examples that giving some sort of charity is never enough because that will not satisfy or be even close to satisfying the kinds living in poverty. One example, Kuper states that if Singer were to walk by a pond and see 50 poor kids drowning, he would skip one day of teaching a lecture at Princeton. Kuper extends that statement by adding that if were to see thousands of poor kids drowning, starving, or ill, then he would have to give up his teaching career and dedicate his time into saving these children.
Kuper claims that we should care about love work, wisdom, art, truth, and etc. Thus means that we should keep and care about dignity and significance as human beings.
Kuper elaborated on Singers claim about people being selfish and wanting to spend their money on luxuries than donate. Kuper claims that wanting to buy things on the side is not selfish, everyone deserves to treat themselves. In the end, the argument between being selfish and selfless doesn't go anywhere due to more needing to be done than simply donating money. People need to volunteer and help out those in need.
The section "Why Charity is Never Enough", supports Kupers' overall argument that Singers' proposal to end poverty is irrational by questioning Singers analogies. For example as Miguel stated on his blog, Kuper extends the statement of the 50 drowning children by adding that if he were to see thousands of poor kids drowning, starving, or ill, then he would have to give up his teaching career and dedicate his time into saving these children.
This section also supports Kupers argument that Singer and his critics suffer from "political acontextualism" by providing a hypothetical example of him (Kuper) sending money to the pandemic of HIV/AIDS in South Africa but he states that his "contribution would be dwarfed and perhaps overridden by President Mbeki's bizarre and injudicious remarks that HIV does not cause AIDS"(75). this example demonstrates that Singer didn't take into consideration the politics and laws of the other countries, in other words Singer was just saying donate what you have to a charity and let them see what they do with the money.
Words/people you need to know:
-Bernard Williams is a moral philosopher who rejected the codification of ethics into moral theories and argued that our ethical life is too untidy to be captured by any systematic moral theory.
-President Mbeki of South Africa placed a ban on the distribution of antiretroviral drugs for HIV because he thinks that HIV does not cause AIDS
-Kleptocratic elite is a form of political and governmental corruption where the government exists to increase the personal wealth and political power of its officials and the ruling class
-OECD stands for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and their mission is to promote policies that will improve the economic and social well-being of people around the world.
-Adjudicating: to settle or determine an issue or dispute judicially
Kuper states that “Singer demands that we deal with poverty by impoverishing our lives”, however, Singer also claims we can “justify spending more on our families and the necessities…” Essentially, Kuper claims that the debate between “self-less” against “selfish” that Singer offers is unhelpful. In order to strengthen his assertion that this debate is unhelpful, Kuper provides a logical example as evidence. He provides the audience with the example of donating money to an AIDS organization in Africa, pointing out that the contribution will not be helpful due to political barriers. Eventually, he reaches his conclusion with the evidence by stating that “we may do better for South Africans by buying furniture and clothes from ethical manufacturers and manufacturers in developing countries than by donation” (75). By providing this evidence to refute Singer’s claim, Kuper reveals how eliminating luxuries from ones life can actually produce detrimental effects for individuals in poverty. This is best summarized in the statement “… when Singer says that luxuries are “unnecessary,” he is right that rich individuals can survive without them, but wrong to think that poor people can – that is, that their well-being is independent of the market in luxury goods.”
In this section “Why Charity is Never enough” by Andrew Kuper, he states various claims that disagree with Singer’s advice for saving the world. One of it being that there is more to life than just survival. Kuper points out that Singer wants us to donate all of the money we don’t need other than to live; essentially Singer wants us to donate all the money we spend on luxuries over necessities. He says that all we need is just to survive and that buying things we don’t need, luxuries, is ethically the same as watching a boy get killed by a train. Kuper combats this claim with one of his own, that there is more to life than just survival. Kuper does not believe that the solution to dealing with poverty is to impoverish ourselves as well. He does not believe we should give up other values such as work, social commitments, knowledge, and all things that may consider excess to just give away because we may not need such values to survive. All in all, the claim means that there is more to life than just being able to survive. Kuper believes survival is underrepresented and of all the other values human beings cherish. He believes if we just focus on survival than that is a selfish act that makes us ignore all other things we care about. We have more things that are significant to us as human beings other than survival. Kuper believes that we should not make ourselves poorer by donating 10% or donating beyond what we need to survive, because there is more to life than just to survive.
Post a Comment