If justice is conceived of as being about what individuals would choose were they unaware of who they are (Singer) then people would surely chose an impartial universalist approach to redistributive justice as advocated by Singer if they did not know whether they were a citizen of the USA or Europe. Singer believes that governments give priority to their citizens over the far more urgent and desperate needs of those further away. I believe Singer is right about this because, in most cases the governments don’t give much thought about helping kids with disabilities as much as they do to war or raising tuitions rates like the U.K just
One point Singer had mentioned to influence us into giving to the needy was about Bob saving his Bugatti car rather than saving the little boy’s life on the train tracks. He uses that example in comparison. When someone has the opportunity to help feed children or give them medical
1999) Although Singer has a great amount of followers, there are people who disagree with his beliefs and moral reasoning. One argument that an individual might have with him is that we should focus on helping the people in our own country. We have poverty stricken and starving people here in America as well. Nobody is helping us, so we must help our neighbors in this country. Giving large sums of our personal profits to other countries will hurt us in the long run, it may be morally rewarding, but financially it is not.
When it comes to giving to charities, there becomes a moral dilemma of whether it should be done by personal choice or through a sense of duty. There is also a choice of whether to even help countries that cannot help themselves, when we at home have our own troubles with famine and poverty. I think it is important that we are good ambassadors to third world countries that are in need of assistance. We are not obligated to help those in need, but in a world of morality, it's the right thing to do. In the article by Peter Singer, he writes of the struggle in East Bengal.
The purpose of this paper is to portray the reaction triggered upon reading Peter M. Whiteley’s "Ties that bind: Hopi gift culture and its first encounter with the United States". One often thinks that gift-giving is an obligation without reciprocal reaction, being taught that it is always better to give than to receive. But upon studying other cultures one can discover that gifts can surprisingly have a much deeper meaning in both social and political environments. Whiteley introduces Hopi culture as one that measures wealth in ritual and ceremonial terms rather than material ones. This is why gifts in Hopi culture are meant to be meaningful in the spiritual realm rather than in the material.
On the other hand, Cousins wants us to help the poor because it actually helps them. Cousins address that, “the best way to bring down the birth rate is not to let people starve, but to give them a better life.” (Cousins 733) And the best way to give them a better life, Cousins states, is not by “cutting back on aid, we ought to be stepping up shipments of fertilizer, chemicals, plows, tractors, harvesting machines, tools, engines, dynamos, and thousands of other items involved in upgrading living standards.”(Cousins 733) Not helping the poor or “Hardinism can become a wild
They get involved with their own desires for career success, as well as their desires for positive outcomes for their own countries. Doing poorly and conceding often requires that negotiators not be embarrassed; that is, that they "save face" for themselves personally and for their governments at home. Let's start this discussion with the famous leaders mentioned so far in the course: In the Week 6 readings you see their own need to "save face" for themselves and their countries. What are some of the great examples shown so far of "saving face" on the part of diplomats? What does "saving face" mean in diplomatic
He feels that Dora made the right choices in her situation. As for Bob, Singer doesn’t believe that he made the best decision and feels that he should be punished for his actions. Singer thinks that the actions of both Bob and Dora are the same as the result of people in this world not donating money to help needy children. Singer states how easy it is to help a child by donating, yet so many people turn the other cheek and only think of themselves. According to Singer, it takes only $200 to save a child's life, and yet so many people are able but not willing to donate.
The government and charities spend huge amounts of money on the child welfare system. So, if homosexuals are given the right to adopt a child, it would not only benefit the child but also the community. He is right by reminding us that it is far better for a child to be raised by a mother and a father but he neglects that homosexuals can raise a child, too. A child is taught to say “mom” or “dad”, he or she is not automatically born with the ability to say that. Therefore, between two male homosexuals, there can be a father and a mother.
For those born to wealth, it is especially important to be taught the value of the dollar. They can also be taught the importance of charity and donating. Affluenza makes the misuse of money possible in today’s world, allowing for it be thrown away in hotels, pointless parties, and useless luxuries in life. This happens when the value of the dollar is never taught to our