Peter Singer is a very famous philosopher who has worked a long time on poverty. He is also very provocative in other ways (particularly his views related to abortion). Here's an interview from the Colbert report, though, on poverty:
http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/8nmnda/peter-singer
Q: From your readings, other video, and video listed above, what is Singer's argument about poverty? Do you agree with it? Explain. Assuming that you agree with him at least somewhat, is there something you can do, especially during this holiday season, that helps you address Singer's concerns?
Singer's argument on poverty is that we can all give at least 10% to the poverty stricken. That instead of, as an example, using grain to feed animals, we use the excess grain to feed people in poverty. In Stephen Colbert's case, all joking aside, he could sell his "Audi" and feed people with the proceeds.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Singer (somewhat) and believe that instead of buying materialistic things we could help those less fortunate through providing food baskets, and selling things that we do not use to help those less fortunate.
I agree with you Lorain, but you worked hard to get those materialistic things! Not saying that everyone that is in poverty deserves to be there but you definitely deserve what you work for.
DeleteI agree with you as well. If everyone helps just a little that will go a long way. I personally think giving is just a good for the giver as the recipient. While you can never truly know what a persons situation is, or what they do with the donations, knowing you tried and "shared a little of your wealth" can be worth it.
DeleteIt is a tough line to toe at what point might people want to just stop working because those who don't work are living better then they are.
DeleteSinger couldn't prove his points very well in the video above, however, through the readings he provides some avenues that one can start to entertain. I agree that we tend to overindulge in materialistic things and could be more helpful to those who are unfortunate, but those who unfortunate need to want to help themselves. I think that is why some of the wealthy individuals start to back off. It doesn't become a matter of not wanting to help but a matter of enabling those who are unwilling to help themselves.
ReplyDeleteWith that being said, you never know someone's story and I think it is more than important to try and reach someone with love, encouragement and a nutritious meal. I know it does help my mood and brain function when I choose healthier options. Last year, my daughter and I passed out sweaters downtown and this Thanksgiving, I think we will pass out apples and oranges to those in need.
Exactly, ENABLING!!!!! That is the word I was looking for in my post. The more we help those who are poor, they start to care less about their current situation. Not only that but they think they deserve to be given everything.
DeleteYou are right everyone has a different story, that is why I said in my post that there are always exceptions to the rule!
Hollie I agree with you in regards to him not getting his point across. He does mean well for the one's who are in less fortunate situations but like you I think that the wealthier people should help to provide to the one's in need by giving them resources to succeed and not just handing them everything.
DeleteI agree with Singer--If we all did our part to help at least one individual just think about the magnitude that would have on our poverty situation. Everyone has his/or her story and it is not for us to judge, you never know when you will be in a situation and need a helping hand (count your blessings) and with the direction the economy is heading we need to live by the quote: "I am my brother keeper" there was a time when people looked after one another nowadays it's every man for themselves. This country was not built by one person it really did "take a village to raise a child" and I feel we as a nation need to retreat back to those kind of values and standards. To make this world a better place for everyone.
ReplyDeleteYou're right Melissa, if everyone gave just a little bit the world could be a much better place. Actually, giving aside, if everyone just cared a little bit more about others the world would be better off.
DeleteMs. Brown, I could not agree more. I know the Sennett book is hard to understand, but I believe that many of his arguments apply to your theory above. The world has become so focused on individual achievement and accomplishment that we have skewed what these two words mean. It appears that wealth and consumption ability are the only factors we judge on. Looking out for others and the common good should be a priority. To be honest, my personal goal is to make insane amounts of money. Not just to be "rich" but for the opportunities it will provide my family in the future. Things like education and career opportunities, access to quality health care, safe food and water, shelter and safety. The income/opportunity gap scares the hell out of me. However, my highest measure of success will be that I helped out others. This comes in many forms as well.
DeleteSinger is trying to say to just give...its as simple as that. Yes I agree with it. I do agree with Hollie that he didn't get his point across too well during the video, but he simply stated that by giving a small amount of what we have (and will probably waste on something stupid), give to those less fortunate. There are so many things we as a society can do....I heard of a lady handing out gift cards to the poor (instead of money), help out at a shelter, donate food to a family within your school that is struggling, adopt a less fortunate family for the holidays....
ReplyDeleteI totally agree. One less Starbucks a week wouldn't kill any of us. Small amounts - even $1 a week - could make a huge difference if everyone joined together.
DeleteI agree with you Maura. Even if you don't have a lot to give, something small goes a long way. And everyone's idea of "small" varies. What is small to some will be "big" to others. If we all commit to making change in small ways, they will all add up to be something big.
DeletePeter Singer did not really get a chance to articulate himself in this video. However, what I have understood thus far and what I believe he is trying to say is that those who are "wealthy" should donate to those who are less fortunate.
ReplyDeleteDo I agree with this? No. Each their own. We give and give to those who are poor and they learn no value and have no appreciation for money. Therefore, they do not care to help themselves or look for a job. I see this daily. My mother in-law supports my brother in-law and his family from diapers to food. Everything always reverts back to "I need (fill in the blank)..." with them whether it is a need or a want. He has two kids and no job. He has yet to purchase one diaper, formula or and food for his family because he knows that his mom will purchase it for him. Ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with him, he is eligible to get a job but prefers not to because everything is given to him!
There is always exceptions to the rule. For example, someone who lost their house in a fire and needs extra help than I would be more than willing to help them out. But to those who are poor because they are lazy, absolutely not!
What can be done during the holiday season? Well there are always food pantries that are excepting food, donating time by working at an organization, and inviting those less fortunate to join Thanksgiving dinner with you.
I agree Colette people do take advantages of give-aways and then come back asking for more when they are in need. I'm in the same situation with some people in my family always having their hand out instead of doing something about it because I'm notorious for giving to them.
DeleteHow about the people that win the lottery? Some of them take that for granted and end up worse off than what they were in the first place. Expecting the money to always be there.
DeleteI agree with helping those who help themselves. If you're sitting on your tush looking for handouts, I say good luck to you! However, if you're working hard to provide and still do not have enough to keep your family afloat, then there is no shame in receiving help from others.
DeleteSinger is basically saying that the absolute wealthy should give to the less fortunate or poor people of the world. I'm about 70/30 on this in favor of the wealthy not necessarily giving to the poor but possibly providing them with more efficient equipment in order to produce. I'm a huge advocate that if you work for something then you understand the true value of the dollar versus what's given to you is taken for granted. In no way am I saying that these poor nations would take it for granted because I do believe that most of them are without due to their geographical location and lack of resources. Where I think the 30 percent comes to play is that the more wealthy should make it where they provide the less fortunate an opportunity to make money to provide. I hate hand me outs and I've had to work since I was a young boy due to the fact that nothing was ever really given to me.
ReplyDeleteNow during the holiday season I do think that people should give to the one's in need. I'm fortunate to share the holidays with family and friends over a warm cooked meal and I think everyone should at least get to enjoy that to some respect.
100% agree that those who work for what they have understand the value! Those who are given everything in life are expect to always receive whatever it may be without doing anything for it.
DeleteWhat about those who are in this place (poverty, homeless, etc.) because of their actions? Criminals, unemployed (because they do not want to work), etc. I do not think the "wealthy" should provide them any resources. The wealthy are not rich because of the poor.
My husband comment towards this debate is that we are not all made out of the same material. If we were, we would all be minions. I chuckled! If there were not some inequalities we would all be puppets doing the same thing and there would be no difference between any of us.
WOW!!!! This seems to be a hot button issue. It looks like we have quite a few comments.
ReplyDeleteMr. Singer argues that the wealthy need to give up some of their dough to help the poor. He believes people should act to prevent bad things from happening. I totally 100% completely agree with him.
Mr. Singer points out how rich people in developed countries truly are compared to the undeveloped world. Many of the comments above refer to hand outs, enabling, etc... I think these comments are off base compared to Mr. Singer's argument. I believe he is referring to endemic poverty. The type of poverty that is almost impossible to break away from without major economic and social changes. He is not referring to welfare moms or lazy people who just work the system. Although I do think some of this behavior is also due to cultural injustices. Do you think that black people in today's America have the same opportunities for success as white people?
This is where the rich, and especially the extremely rich come into play. I do not have the same access to the data as he does, but it sounds as if it wouldn't take much wealth transfer to take a huge bite out of endemic world poverty. IMHO, the rich owe it to the rest of the world. Their wealth exists because it has been transferred from the poor to the rich. The rich also benefit exponentially from government services, law enforcement, military protection, and other public services.
I should do more. I always donate food and money. I am actually attending a fundraiser, and donating food tomorrow night. I always support businesses that give back to the community, and practice socially conscious behavior.
Like most everyone, I think Singer was trying to say people should "share their wealth". And again, like many of the others, I am conflicted on this issue as well. I've been fortunate to have lived a privileged life (my parents weren't millionaires, but I've never been close to real hunger either). I don't really relate, or understand the impoverished life. I can't understand the daily struggle of being hungry, moving from place to place because the rent has come due and I cannot pay. I can't fathom a life without opportunity and/or never seeing my family members make it out of poverty.
ReplyDeleteThough I cannot relate, I do have empathy so I personally like to give when I can. Do I believe all of my charity goes to the right people? No. I most certainly believe that there are many people who are needy because of poor decisions and their own actions. However, that is not my place to judge. I have never walked in their shoes, I did not live their lives. I believe all people start out good, life is better to some than others. In my heart giving is the right thing to do. If for everything 10 things I “give” if just one thing falls into the right hands, it is worth it to me. If one person’s life is positively impacted in the smallest way by something I have done, I consider that a success.
Earlier I said I am conflicted. What I mean is that though I personally like to give, I do not believe people should feel obligated or forced to give. I think it is a personal choice. Just because someone may not be as generous as another does not make them a better person. People should give/donate because they want to. No other reason.
I agree I like to give, but feel like since we live in America and we are technically "free" then we should be free to do with our money what we wish. This makes the people who give that much more important and their gift more important as it is given freely and with good will. Otherwise we are throwing money at the problem.
DeleteSinger believed in creating balance. We can easily as a society brush off those in need. Why? because we are to busy to care? or we are caught up in our on lives to notice. This is a fact life. If there is a rich part of society there will probably be a poor side.
ReplyDeleteI would also convey what are true riches? where does your value come from? Are you materialistic or are you more concerned with companionship and love for life. Of course there are the necessities i.e food, water, shelter etc. But that suffices ones needs to survive that should above all else be most important when considering what is repetitiously provided for the ones who need it most.
Singer wants to help those in need but so many people have the mentality that so many of those people have placed themselves into that position so they do not deserve help. However, can you as an individual turn your back on them? Would their death not be on your conscience if you could have saved them but instead decided to do nothing. If it would not truly effect you life then why not help?
ReplyDeleteThis is a frustrating debate. We (my family) tithe, we give to the less fortunate, we give our man power, our time, our money, and our talents to help others year round. That being said, it seems that what Singer is talking about is that everyone should be giving money to feed all the hungry people to "end world hunger." What Singer doesn't seem to understand is that throwing money at a problem never helps. What we need are more jobs, and more people willing to do those jobs versus just collecting their government checks. People don't have pride anymore, in a job well done. To be unemployed today or on welfare is not the same as it was when I was growing up and for the generations before me. It was an embarrassment if you had to have assistance and you couldn't provide for your family. To ask for help was embarrassing, because people had pride. They wanted to work they wanted to do a good job, and earn their own money, support their family. This isn't the case at least in the US anymore. Why work when you can live off others. People (for the most part) choose to live as they do. They may not choose their circumstances or the things that have happened to them, but they choose how they react to those things. This ultimately makes or breaks someones character. People either lay down and give up or they pull themselves on and choose differently. I can say to the majority of people, "you are as happy now as you want to be, you choose to continue the way that you do, otherwise you would change the situation." So yes I choose to help, but ultimately my hope for the world is that we become more self sufficient, self reliant, and gain back our pride in doing the best we can when we can. I look to help people get out of their bad situations, not help them remain comfortably in them. To force the "rich" to give to the "poor" is socialism. We are not all equal, that's what makes us unique. There are winners and losers. I've been on both sides, and know which one I would rather be on, so I fight. People need their fight back. (And I am not talking about their ability to flip out and rage every time they think they know what they are talking about but don't. These people feel they are due some sort of justice so they start looting and burning towns to the ground. Those are stupid people who think that the answer to a problem is to create a bigger problem.)
ReplyDelete