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?
8 comments:
"What does this section do to support Kupers argument/alternatives?"
Throughout his article Kuper examines why the Singer Solution is not actually a solution at all to poverty relief, while introducing the start to a solution of his own. The section “No Royal Road to Poverty Relief” supports Kuper’s main argument that fixing poverty is not easy. In the singer solution, Singer has one idea, stop spending money on luxurious and donate, but as Kuper describes there is no one way street to fixing poverty. Kuper states that Singer’s analogies focus on the mind and one thing, but it is the wrong thing. Kuper explains that Singer could be justified if we lived in a one-dimensional world but we don’t. this supports Kuper because he is explain how Singer’s one idea fix is not going to work, we do not live in a one dimensional world there are many aspects we must take into consideration. He asks Singer what kinds of production and consumption are we allowed partaking in. By asking Singer this question it is showing that Singer wrote something that was insufficient. These several questions that Kuper asks Singer justifies that there is no easy on way street to fix world poverty, there are many avenues we must consider and go over. In which Kuper explains his ideas in the next section.
In reply to Emily Anderson,
Yes, that is why I believe he uses the term "cosmopolitan" which I would define in my own words as just being global and not limiting to just to just one of anything. In Singer's article, he kind of failed to tackle all sides, so by Kuper confronting all of his points in this section, and raising questions and coming up with other alternatives makes his argument much stronger than Singer's. I would say, by weakening Singer's argument and giving an alternative, he has an advantage. So by focusing on how Singer's analogies were misleading, supported Kuper's argument and alternatives. His "royal road" is much rational than Singer's.
-Adrianna Boles
I didn't add my name but Anonymous is Michelle Tubao. Sorry!
In the section "No Royal Road to Poverty Relief", Kuper introduces a list of Singer's techniques and reasonings on why and how people should donate to aid organizations. By listing what Kuper thinks is Singer's "four powerful and relevant points", it sets up an argument of which Kuper refutes later. Singer's arguments and ideas helps further justify and creates a basis Kuper's thoughts and opinions. The list also helps the reader follow along more easily to Kuper's arguments by listing them in a "first, second, third, etc" format because when he refutes Singer's thoughts, it is already organized. An important word that the reader may need to know is what an analogy is, in order for us to understand how Singer uses it, and how Kuper believes it may not be used in the most affective way.
From Michelle Tubao:
“What Evidence? What does this evidence do?”
First of all, what is evidence? Evidence in the Course
Reader is defined as the “support, reasons, data/information used to help persuade/prove an argument.” It can be in the form of facts, examples,analogies, illustrations, interviews, statistics, testimony, personal experience, reasoning, and finally authoritative quotes. (17)
Kuper uses several forms of evidence:
He begins this section laying out the four main points Singer has made in his “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” article.
In simple terms, they are:
(1) Analogy arguments are useful
for displaying people’s instincts and thoughts.
(2) People’s actions depend on
their beliefs.
(3) Achieving structural change is not likely, but one can do
good directly though donations.
(4) The government values their citizens and will mimic citizens’ act of donating.
With Singer’s points laid out, which is evidence in the form
of facts, Kuper reasons his own set beliefs to counter each point.
(1) Singer’s analogies focus on one thing and are misleading.
(2) Singer is a neoliberal and
his actions and thoughts reflect his belief meaning that he thinks donating from your income is best solution to help poor.
(3) Kuper agrees with this
point, but he reasons that Singer does not explain how to execute actions to benefit the poor. All he says is to donate excess money which is no good.
(4)Kuper uses fact that the United States does not tax to help the needy based on the perspective that charity is voluntary. Kuper reasons that Singer does not explain how exactly we can get government to help the poor and what actions we
must take.
Using reasoning as evidence, Kuper is able to make the point to his readers that Singer’s Solution has many questions left unanswered and is flawed; therefore, it is an imperfect solution.
He ends this section with an authoritative quote by Singer
(which is a form of evidence in itself): “Caring about doing what is right is,of course, essential, but it is not enough, as numerous historical examples of well meaning but misguided men indicate” (83).
This final piece of evidence used by Kuper is to show that Singer, as a “moral expert,” needs to provide a picture of what he wants people to do if he wants to achieve something big. Clearly,Singer cares, but if he abides by what he said, he needs to do more in his
execution.
What major claims? – What does this mean?
Kuper claims that the analogies used by Singer focus on one thing and that at times they can be wrong, be misleading and can only be justified under certain circumstances.
He agrees with Singer's argument that donation will do good but not reduce the amount of government aid or the extent at which the government and individuals will take responsibility for.
Another claim by Kuper is that there is a difference between making the wealthy people aware of the suffering people in need and making them actually doing something. Singer's article does inform them and makes them aware that instead of helping others these people with money are wasting them on other things, but does this article really encourage them to act upon the issue?
No taxation and government intervention is justified by the idea that by providing volunteer donations and charity will help the needy in a better way
Reply to Emily Anderson:
When Kuper asks what are the things we should sacrifice in order to make these donations. That's true; like everyone has different necessities. YOu might not need that expensive drink but what if you have no other choice and this is the only thing you can have, are you going to be obligated to risk your health just because your duty is to give pup all the "luxuries" to help others. Wouldn't this mean that everyone would be lacking resources. The definition on luxuries varies so much within people that it would be ultimately very hard to classify each.
Becca Cohen
I agree with what Emily's ideas are and can only add to them that since there is no "royal road" to poverty relief, we need to map out a plan that will gradually get us to that plan though several steps and detours. While charity helps redistribute wealth, it is realistically very limited in improving the living situations on a sustainable level as stated by Kuper. I couldn't agree with this more, because realistically these people not only need the resources that we donate money to prove for them, but a provider that helps them rebuild their daily lives, since the economic and social pressures of the world confine the poverish to never reach outside the still relatively poor lifestyle. I think it's really sad how true this lifestyle statement holds true, however it got me thinking how we as Americans need to make a difference on a different scale and try to contribute world change in regards to stereotypes and what is acceptable and unacceptable. We need to break down the schemas that are confining the poor that are trying to change their lifestyle.This will take the efforts of many people in several countries over the course of many years. I'd like to think that one day everyone was treated fair and equal literally in every country.
Post a Comment