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?
6 comments:
In this section Kuper makes multiple claims. One of the claims he makes is that argument by analogy is not effective. He states that the analogies that Singer uses in his article are effective rhetorically, but they are not actual ways that we should act. They do not account for the different aspects that could effect ones actions. They also make it seem like there is an easy solution to the problem when there is not. Kuper also mentions that they lack an actual way that we should react to the situation over time thus making the solution the analogy presents not effective in the long run.
Throughout the reading there are many large words that not everybody knows off the top of their head, this makes it hard to read and comprehend what the author is saying. Some of the words in this section are;
acontextual: meaning without context
maximally: of, relating to, or consisting of a maximum
impoverishing: to make a person poor
plausible: having an experience of truth or reason
couched: express in language of specified style
narcissistic: is a personality disorder that comes from the word narcissism which means to be obsessed with ones self.
pandemic: an infectious disease spreading through humans
injudicious: showing poor judgement
neoliberal: political idea that blends the ideals of liberals with economic growth
kleptocratic: a government or state where those in power exploit and steal resources.
rapacious: aggressively greedy or grasping
enmeshed: cause to become entangled in something.
symptomatic: showing symptoms.
These are the words that I had a tough time with I hope having the definition will help you guys further understand this passage.
Andrew Kuper motioned moral acontextualism that preoccupies Singer’s analysis. Singer may have good points; however, Kuper claims do not agree with his judgments. Singer’s critics feels like he is forcing the audience to do something about the children who are suffering in Africa, but is it the right thing to do; to give up our success to help out other? He demands that each individual should deal with the poverty issue and save human lives, it is easier said than done. Kuper disagree with Singer’s approach, he feels that Singer is trying to tell us that we have to give up our expensive to the ones who are suffering, except that solution is not easy to do. Singer claims that spending money on families and other stuff are unnecessary. He is trying to say that we can spend money but we should “give away everything beyond that, or donate at least 10 percent of our income”(Kuper PG.75). Kuper believes that we should not give up shopping, eating, traveling, etc. If people work hard to earn their money, they deserve to do whatever they want with it, Singer does not have the right to say anything. Kuper illustrates the difference about “self-ish” against “self-less.” He gave an idea that people do not need to donate money to help out South Africa’s environment, but we should find ways to help and fix the problems. In some case Kuper agrees that “Distance matters because scale matter”(Kuper PG.76). The scale of the societies will show and make more people defenseless; scaling is to help ones know their priorities when it comes to addressing with poverty. Moreover, Singer’s judgments explains that rich and the poor both have different lives and that is the world in which we live in, but Kuper suggest that we do not need to sacrifice much, we just need to find the right resources and good approach to make a positive difference.
What words/ideas do you need to know?
*Wisdom- a state of mind to me wise knowing whats right and whats wrong having the right information.know how to handle a solution before it happens.
*Moral - Being able to follow rules on the right conduct. know what is good and what is bad .
I think these terms are two big words cause they have everything to why charity is never enough.
Things need to know?
*Make sure you know to surival be able to not get in to nothing to cost you your life.
Kuper uses different types of evidence in the section why charity is never enough. One example he uses is when he asked if Singer saw 50 people close to drowning in the pool how he would react by rescuing them or if he even would. He also uses HIV/AIDS as an example saying if he donated the money to the AIDS organization that it wouldn't help South Africa and that it would just do them harm Kuper says. On page 75 he is showing evidence that if people increase the percent of visitors went up to 10-15 percent that it would make a huge difference to the poor. The evidence throughout this section is showing that poor people can't survive without "luxury" but rich people can. Also it is showing that Kuper is disagrees with singer on that we shouldn't spend on the things we worked for and we should spend it and just help the problems that Africa has.
ANTHONY BALOCCO
In the section " Why Charity is Never Enough," Andrew Kuper makes several claims regarding world poverty relief. Among these is the claim that humans shouldn't always focus on "survival maximization" and should also worry about "love, work, wisdom, art, truth, and much more.." He claims that Singer wants to deal with poverty by impovershing others. Kuper disagrees with him because he does not believe we should throw out all other values except survival when we approach world poverty relief.
Post a Comment