In this section, Kuper talks more about how aid agencies and NGOs sometimes do more harm than good. Kuper also talks about the quasi(resebeling)-Calvinist (the idea that God already determines your fate) approach and how it isn’t effective, because it focuses too much on the moral obligations(or what is seen as an obligation by a Calvinist) of an individual “rather than effective collective moral norms and political institutions.” He mentions a problem that occurred in the country of Rwandan. Aid agencies helped with the refugee camps, but this made the people not go back to their homes when it was safe, and that would have been better for them. Then he also talks about the food relief in the 1970s that was harmful for farmers (in the poor nations) and their families. All this helps back up his claim that says that charity really isn’t enough
The first paragraph of the section "Political Judgement In Context" supports his argument that a charity- focused approach is limited to impoverishment. He starts off by saying that although he seems like he's accepting a defeat, it's helpful to see Karl Marx' point of view. For those of you who don't know, Karl Marx was a Communist. He believed that everybody should get paid for what they deserved. For example, the harder you work, the more you should get paid and the less you work, the less you deserve. He believed that in order for change in poverty, you need to look at driving cause of it. We should be looking at the structures and mechanisms of social order and cooperation if we want change. He ends by saying that we don't have to agree with Marx to think that there will be no deep change if we tell the wealthy to be more charitable.
Some words I didn't know is defeatist. Defeatist refers to the acceptance of being defeated. Also dynamic causes means the impulsive causes. It's what drove poverty. According to the online encyclopedia, "In Marxist theory, the `immiseration thesis` (also referred to as `emiseration thesis`) refers to the view that the nature of capitalist production logically requires an ever greater reduction in real wages and worsening of working conditions for the proletariat". This means that capitalism brings inequality of income earned and can only work to the limit in hours of work. For example, we need a car to go to work which may be a luxury yet our wages need to match these requirements. I also didn't know what bourgeoisie was until I checked the dictionary. According to dictionary.com, bourgeoisie is "(in Marxist theory) the class that, in contrast to the proletariat or wage-earning class, is primarily concerned with property values.". They are also known as the upper class or the owners of production in a capitalist society. As you can see we have to agree that there wouldn't be much change if we were to donate our money.
In the fourth paragraph in this section, Kuper emphasizes why we cannot rely on aid organizations, especially NGOs. He argues that "NGOs can never be the primary agents of justice and aid over the long run." Kuper continues by listing reasons as to why they cannot be relied on for aid. NGO funding its not constant, but is unpredictable. It is based on motive of other people who are willing to fund these organizations. Maybe if more people were to obligate some time and money to these organizations then it would probably be a reliable agent of justice. But the thing is, people are just too selfish to sacrifice their time and money for others. It is also possible for these NGOs could be selfish by using some of their funds to promote their organization. This relates to Singer's article as he says people use their spare money of luxurious items but it also opposes it as Singer suggests that we should donate to these aid organizations but Kuper says we should not. Kuper implies that the government should receive more attention from the people over anything, in hopes of justice in the long run.
In the third paragraph of Andrew Kuper’s section Political Judgment in Context Andrew Kuper refers to Adam Smith’s theory of the “Invisible Hand”. The invisible hand theory refers to a free market, businessmen producing freely for what is needed and a “higher power” is not in authority to tell them how much to produce. Andrew Kuper compares this theory to Singers claim that aid can be directed overseas as easy as getting it to someone down the block. Kuper claims he is overly optimistic and like the invisible hand theory this “solution” is way more complex than a simple comparison to a free market. It can also do more harm than good. So ultimately Kuper is saying that donating money to aid organizations is complex, whereas Singer believes it to be quite simple. Singer says, “We must do something” and Kuper agrees but he says to do so cautiously. Kuper claims, “actions are rarely cost free.” Meaning that all actions have consequences and since the solution is not as simple as Singer claims it to be, people must donate and “proceed carefully.”
Ideas that need to be known to understand this paragraph is the invisible hand theory. Basically this theory means that people focus on their needs alone and production of supplies is as needed and not as demanded by an authoritarian. An example would be a baker, a shoe maker and a carpenter make what they judge will be sufficient and buy from each what they need without having to consult to a higher power.
Words that were difficult were perversities and injunction. Perversities is the plural derivative for perverse which refers to a persons deliberate actions to act in an inappropriate way regardless of there consequences. It also can be referred to in contrary belief to the expected. Injunction means an authoritative order.
This supports Kupers argument because it shows that the solution to world poverty is not a simple one and Singer was overly optimistic to argue that is was. This helps his argument because he says that sometimes simple can do more harm than good and the complexity of this issue should be taken carefully.
In the second paragraph, Kuper talks about how with the individualistic approach "one can never do enough, never be as moral as ought to be." The words that you need to know are quasi Calvinsit which is defined as being part Calvinist and that your fate and future is already determined. He explains how there has been relief efforts that have failed and how the structure sensitive approach to development is "indespensable". Taking this approach, he talks about how it is actually proloonging the issue and making things worse. He also mentions how the the "food relief" in the 1970's alos damaged the situation of developing farmers and their dependents. This all supports that helping can actually make things worse and his previous statement of how you can never do enough.
The last paragraph in this section does what any solid conclusion paragraph should. This is where Kuper puts all of his ideas together, and puts them out the for the reader to ponder. His main point is that "we need a political philosophy," meaning that Singer's ethical approach will simply not get the job done. He insists instead that we take many other things into account and not be "ahistorical, acontextual, and noninstitutional in our approach to global poverty relief." One word I had to look up in this section was abrogation,which means to get rid of or do away with usually by authority.
In the section "What can Political Philosophy Contribute", Kuper presents the idea of three very important components for a political philosophy; including a political economy, theory of justice, and a political sociology. In order to accurately asses ones economy they need the proper research presented in order to prove the drastic increase or decrease of the economic state before making a change for the better regardless. Essentially every country needs to have a game plan, so the politics that run the country are in charge of creating and maintain this game plan every time they are elected into office. For developing countries, this is an even larger issue because their governments tend to be corrupt or unorganized, or even worse, unexistent. This I think is the roots of the problems fro developing countries as unfortuate as it is because they cannot further analyse or even improve their current living situation if there is no government to analyse or change the economic state of a country.
7 comments:
In this section, Kuper talks more about how aid agencies and NGOs sometimes do more harm than good. Kuper also talks about the quasi(resebeling)-Calvinist (the idea that God already determines your fate) approach and how it isn’t effective, because it focuses too much on the moral obligations(or what is seen as an obligation by a Calvinist) of an individual “rather than effective collective moral norms and political institutions.” He mentions a problem that occurred in the country of Rwandan. Aid agencies helped with the refugee camps, but this made the people not go back to their homes when it was safe, and that would have been better for them. Then he also talks about the food relief in the 1970s that was harmful for farmers (in the poor nations) and their families. All this helps back up his claim that says that charity really isn’t enough
The first paragraph of the section "Political Judgement In Context" supports his argument that a charity- focused approach is limited to impoverishment. He starts off by saying that although he seems like he's accepting a defeat, it's helpful to see Karl Marx' point of view. For those of you who don't know, Karl Marx was a Communist. He believed that everybody should get paid for what they deserved. For example, the harder you work, the more you should get paid and the less you work, the less you deserve. He believed that in order for change in poverty, you need to look at driving cause of it. We should be looking at the structures and mechanisms of social order and cooperation if we want change. He ends by saying that we don't have to agree with Marx to think that there will be no deep change if we tell the wealthy to be more charitable.
Some words I didn't know is defeatist. Defeatist refers to the acceptance of being defeated. Also dynamic causes means the impulsive causes. It's what drove poverty. According to the online encyclopedia, "In Marxist theory, the `immiseration thesis` (also referred to as `emiseration thesis`) refers to the view that the nature of capitalist production logically requires an ever greater reduction in real wages and worsening of working conditions for the proletariat". This means that
capitalism brings inequality of income earned and can only work to the limit in hours of work. For example, we need a car to go to work which may be a luxury yet our wages need to match these requirements. I also didn't know what bourgeoisie was until I checked the dictionary. According to dictionary.com, bourgeoisie is "(in Marxist theory) the class that, in contrast to the proletariat or wage-earning class, is primarily concerned with property values.". They are also known as the upper class or the owners of production in a capitalist society. As you can see we have to agree that there wouldn't be much change if we were to donate our money.
In the fourth paragraph in this section, Kuper emphasizes why we cannot rely on aid organizations, especially NGOs. He argues that "NGOs can never be the primary agents of justice and aid over the long run." Kuper continues by listing reasons as to why they cannot be relied on for aid. NGO funding its not constant, but is unpredictable. It is based on motive of other people who are willing to fund these organizations. Maybe if more people were to obligate some time and money to these organizations then it would probably be a reliable agent of justice. But the thing is, people are just too selfish to sacrifice their time and money for others. It is also possible for these NGOs could be selfish by using some of their funds to promote their organization. This relates to Singer's article as he says people use their spare money of luxurious items but it also opposes it as Singer suggests that we should donate to these aid organizations but Kuper says we should not. Kuper implies that the government should receive more attention from the people over anything, in hopes of justice in the long run.
In the third paragraph of Andrew Kuper’s section Political Judgment in Context Andrew Kuper refers to Adam Smith’s theory of the “Invisible Hand”. The invisible hand theory refers to a free market, businessmen producing freely for what is needed and a “higher power” is not in authority to tell them how much to produce. Andrew Kuper compares this theory to Singers claim that aid can be directed overseas as easy as getting it to someone down the block. Kuper claims he is overly optimistic and like the invisible hand theory this “solution” is way more complex than a simple comparison to a free market. It can also do more harm than good. So ultimately Kuper is saying that donating money to aid organizations is complex, whereas Singer believes it to be quite simple. Singer says, “We must do something” and Kuper agrees but he says to do so cautiously. Kuper claims, “actions are rarely cost free.” Meaning that all actions have consequences and since the solution is not as simple as Singer claims it to be, people must donate and “proceed carefully.”
Ideas that need to be known to understand this paragraph is the invisible hand theory. Basically this theory means that people focus on their needs alone and production of supplies is as needed and not as demanded by an authoritarian. An example would be a baker, a shoe maker and a carpenter make what they judge will be sufficient and buy from each what they need without having to consult to a higher power.
Words that were difficult were perversities and injunction. Perversities is the plural derivative for perverse which refers to a persons deliberate actions to act in an inappropriate way regardless of there consequences. It also can be referred to in contrary belief to the expected. Injunction means an authoritative order.
This supports Kupers argument because it shows that the solution to world poverty is not a simple one and Singer was overly optimistic to argue that is was. This helps his argument because he says that sometimes simple can do more harm than good and the complexity of this issue should be taken carefully.
In the second paragraph, Kuper talks about how with the individualistic approach "one can never do enough, never be as moral as ought to be." The words that you need to know are quasi Calvinsit which is defined as being part Calvinist and that your fate and future is already determined. He explains how there has been relief efforts that have failed and how the structure sensitive approach to development is "indespensable". Taking this approach, he talks about how it is actually proloonging the issue and making things worse. He also mentions how the the "food relief" in the 1970's alos damaged the situation of developing farmers and their dependents. This all supports that helping can actually make things worse and his previous statement of how you can never do enough.
The last paragraph in this section does what any solid conclusion paragraph should. This is where Kuper puts all of his ideas together, and puts them out the for the reader to ponder. His main point is that "we need a political philosophy," meaning that Singer's ethical approach will simply not get the job done. He insists instead that we take many other things into account and not be "ahistorical, acontextual, and noninstitutional in our approach to global poverty relief." One word I had to look up in this section was abrogation,which means to get rid of or do away with usually by authority.
Becca Cohen
In the section "What can Political Philosophy Contribute", Kuper presents the idea of three very important components for a political philosophy; including a political economy, theory of justice, and a political sociology. In order to accurately asses ones economy they need the proper research presented in order to prove the drastic increase or decrease of the economic state before making a change for the better regardless. Essentially every country needs to have a game plan, so the politics that run the country are in charge of creating and maintain this game plan every time they are elected into office. For developing countries, this is an even larger issue because their governments tend to be corrupt or unorganized, or even worse, unexistent. This I think is the roots of the problems fro developing countries as unfortuate as it is because they cannot further analyse or even improve their current living situation if there is no government to analyse or change the economic state of a country.
Post a Comment