Think about what you need to know to understand this section. Your answer might include some of the following:
What does this section do to support Kuper’s argument/alternatives
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?
5 comments:
In the first paragraph of this section Kuper points out that according to Singer it is "monstrous to allow...minor considerations to count against taking action to save the [life of a child]"(72). In addition, Kuper claims that we (Americans) do nothing to save the life of an African child even though the costs are of no "moral significance" or of "comparable moral importance." He supports his claim by reffering to Singer's imaginary example of how he (Singer) chooses to save a child from drowning in a pond ruining his clothes and missing his lecture. This is a vivid example of how the moral significance and satisfaction of saving a childs life cannot be compared with getting your clothes dirty and failing to give a university lecture. This paragraph is supposed to help readers reflect on how one may fail to live a moral "decent life" by ignoring a child's desperate need of help and refussing to donate an "insignificant" amount of one's income.
In the second paragraph of this section, Kuper lists the different strategies that Singer uses, such as his use of utilitarian reasoning. In addition, he puts up some questions that Singer answered than put up said answer in order to list the flow of thought that Singer also used in his article. Kuper points out that Singer makes "most of our material acquisitions and new experiences seem like luxuries of little or no moral significance" (73). In addition, Kuper also mentions how Singer understands that a widespread increase in donations in unlikely, but "insists that 'we should at least know that we are failing to live a morally decent life'" (73). This paragraph was there in order for readers to understand Singer's strategies and what they were set to do.
After reading Gernaro's and Bernard's analysis, Gernaro makes a relevant point when he talks about that the first paragraph is supposed to help readers reflect about how one fails to live a moral "decent life". Connecting to Genaro's idea, in the fourth paragraph, Kuper addresses one of Singer's main point about his argument and it is about a utilitarian's perspective about maximizing happiness and minimizing pain. This means that an individual would need to pick a choice that has the best outcome. For example, Genaro talks about how Singer chooses to save a child from drowning in a pond if it meant to ruin his clothes and miss his lecture. It is better to save the child than to get our clothes ruin because the child's life is stake while ruin clothes can be washed off. This would maximize happiness and minimize pain. Connecting back to Bernard, Bernard brings up a great point when he quotes "most of our material acquisitions and new experiences seem like luxuries of little or no moral significance"(73). because this connects back to one of Singer's argument in the fourth paragraph that Kuper addresses. One of Singer's argument states that, "there is no moral equivalence between our penchant for luxuries and survival needs of poor people...it makes no moral difference whether the person I help is a neighbor's child ten yards away from me or a Bengali whose name I shall never know, ten thousand miles away" (73-74). Singer believes that it's better for society to help others than value our own utilities because they have no moral worth. The fourth paragraph addresses Singer's overall argument illustrated by Kuper. This paragraph helps readers understand that Singer's argument is that people need to value morals more than anything else. Singer's three main points about his argument talks about maximizing happiness and minimizing pain, people should each other even if the distance across the world and people should make a vast amount of donations. Kuper uses this analysis to counter argue that there are flaws in Singer's argument.
In the third paragraph, Kuper offers an inquiry of whom Singer believes this “obligatory” charity should go to. Kuper argues that Singer holds two ideas superlative in answering this question, “the relative extent of poor people’s need” and how sure one can be that the designated money actually reaches its destination. Kuper notes that Singer’s cosmopolitan ideas should not be limited to one’s own nation, rather Singer believes that national ties should be disregarded when making charitable donations. Family ties, according to Singer, would require “abhorrent levels of coercion” to eradicate, but patriotic ties “neither are necessary to the well-being of all of us nor are they intransigent.” Kuper notes that Singer actually argues that citizens and governments unwilling to donate to nations in dire need because of priority to their own people “are committing a sin that comes close to discriminating on the basis of race.”
In paragraph three Kuper discuses Singer's philosophy on charity. This section supports his argument that the Singer Solution is impractical. He supports his argument by giving examples of Singer's views and quoting him as well. Kupers main claim is that Singer is a Cosmopolitan who only wants to help one individual rather than a group that needs help. I think that Kuper is trying to explain that Singer would only help one child and forget about the rest. We do not have time to help every individual, this is why Kuper wants us to help better there economies, so we can help them help themselves. This section provokes questions in regards to who should donate what and what we are obligated to do. Then Kuper goes on discussing Singers views on these questions and how they are impractical. Basically this section just revolves around Singer's views on charity and how Kuper believes they are impractical.
Post a Comment