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?
13 comments:
Why does Kuper talk about the three main points?
In Kuper’s section “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Kuper presents three main points regarding Singer’s argument. By presenting Singer’s main points one at a time, it allows Kuper to take each point one-by-one and analyze them to show the “complex” mistakes in each of his arguments and also show how Singer’s approach is the wrong approach that is likely to actually hurt the poor. He states what his argument relies on, what it denies, and the results. This is possibly a strategy he uses to build up and present Singer’s so called “solutions” in order to, in later sections, confront each section of his argument/”solution."
-Adrianna Boles
In response to Adrianna B.
I completely agree that Kuper's purpose in outlining the three main points in Singer's argument is to allow him to take each of the points and explain where Singer makes mistakes.
In addition, I will add that Kuper discusses each of these points found on page 73 of the course reader to answer the question: "Who must do what for whom?" His argument relies on analogies and theoretical situations, we must help all people in poverty, and to donate a large sum of your money.
Kuper, in later sections of his piece writes in more detail and expands on these points. I believe these three points here set him up for this in later sections.
In response to Adrianna B.
I agree with Adrianna, by analyzing each point one at a time you can actually see what is wrong with Singer's argument one at a time. This makes it a little bit easier for the audience to understand what exactly Kuper disagrees with Singer's claims. Kuper knows that there is probably more things he wants to write about Singer's claims to help the poor, but by narrowing it down to three main points will give him a solid ground to work on.
I also agree with Adrianna. Kuper specifically outlined out Singers points to show their faults. I really like this approach because it allows the reader to understand fully where Kuper is coming from. In order to understand fault of someones argument it is critical to point each and every point.
According to Kuper, what is Singer's most important value?
Andrew Kuper critizes several of Peter Singers claims in the section of "The Singer Solution to World Poverty." Kuper specifically focuses on Singers main idea,which he describes as "morality that shows global concern." What he means by this is that throughout Singers article, "Peter Singer's Solution to World Poverty" Singer mentions that saving a life should come before any other luxury in the world. To those of us who do not donate our extra earning we are failing to have morality. Singer claims we need to donate, not only a portion of out extra income but any surplus earnings. Kuper's problem with this is that Singer is very specific in what he believes makes someone with moral concern for the world. Singer say the average family spends $30,000 on necessities, and says that the extra income should be donated to a charitable cause which could save children's lives. Having a set standard that distinguishes those who are living, according to Singer, "morally decent life" doesn't make sense. Kuper states there are to many factors that play into the role of a moral life. This claim made by Kuper helps the audience see that Singers solution to poverty is a bit too raw to go off of. We cant believe that we are living morally wrong lives based off Singers high demands. Kuper gains more credibility and understanding from the audience by explaining that Singers most important value is a bit ridiculous and semi impossible to accomplish.
In response to Adrianna:
I agree with what Adrianna said about how Kuper refers to the three main points. It is obvious that by the way Kuper wrote his response he can easily analyze each point thoroughly. He can depict what he agrees on with Singer if anything at all, and what he disagrees with.
In response to Belinda.
I would agree with the fact that Kuper states it is wrong to say how much someone spends on necessities, every family is different. Singer did not give us any numbers as a reader; we have no idea where he gets that number from. As Kuper says there are many different roles that play into a decent life, a family could have a sick child that costs a lot in medical bills. It is not right for Singer to state how much we should be spending.
In response to Adrianna B.'s comment
I agree that Kuper’s purpose of presenting the three main points of Singer’s argument is to highlight the mistake of approaching the poverty situation wrong. Later in this section, Kuper mentions that Singer’s solution to help those in poverty is only the first part of the strategy that helps evoke the audience to take action. Elaborating on the three main points Kuper outlines, Kuper emphasizes that Singer’s approach is only an “emotive and appealing argument.” In other words, Singer’s solution could or could not cause the audience to take action depending on how well Singer has persuaded them. Although Singer’s argument can actually cause his audience to think deeply about the situation, the important part is will his audience actually be moved by what he argued. Kuper explains that Singer does not consider other aspects of his solution because the poor could be negatively affected instead. Not considering the fact that the political and economic situation also plays a big role to why this situation was brought up in the first place, Kuper argues that this is the part that Singer makes a huge mistake on. Overall, Kuper organizes Singer’s main points very well to present the ideas Kuper agrees on or not.
Kuper defines utilitarianism as “moral action [that] involves minimizing suffering and maximizing well-being” (73). He does this by first mentioning an article by Singer in 1972, “Famine, Affluence and Morality,” in which Singer poses a series of hypothetical situations as he did in “The Singer Solution to World Poverty.” In the article, Singer focuses on what the rich ought to do to help the poor and to prove that they do nothing while thousands of people die worldwide, he describes an unlikely scenario involving saving a child’s life that an individual comes into personal contact with, and saving the lives of anonymous people in other countries. To Singer, failing to save a dying child right in front of you is morally the same as failing to save children that you have never met and the only way one can save a child in need is by donating all of their excess money. Kuper then says that through Singer’s utilitarian reasoning involving maximizing well-being for all, Singer makes his audience reason that “material acquisitions [and] new experiences seem like luxuries of little or no moral significance” (73). This helps strengthen Kuper’s argument because by defining Singer’s techniques that help him shape his central arguments, he is able to later refute and point out the errors in such reasoning. Kuper says that Singer’s reasoning, although somewhat logical, is essentially flawed and actually detrimental to the poor (74). Kuper is then able to point out that when Singer asserts that wealthy people should be donating excess money to the impoverished, he fails to realize that real world scenarios and solutions are much more complex than the “thought experiments” and easy fixes described in his articles. This allows Kuper to expand upon his theories of nation development and fully disprove Singer’s claims.
In response to Belinda Enriquez’s comment
I also agree that Singer’s main concern is that donations should be given by those who have “more,” and it would be morally wrong for those who don’t help the ones that are in desperate need. Although Singer calls out these actions as morally wrong and make his audience feel guilty, it wouldn’t really be the right approach to make his audience take action. Even if his audience were to take action as he says, where does the feeling of morality come from if sacrificing things even happiness, love and commitment of one makes you question your purpose of living? Kuper states, “Singer demands that we deal with poverty by impoverishing our human lives.” In other words, when we give to those that are in need, it should come from the goodness of our hearts and we should feel good doing it. Singer does not touch on this point like this, and he should have done so along with his statistics. With this approach, his solution or argument would probably have a greater impact to his audience.
Response to Belinda,
Like stated by Singer donations are important and they help in a good way, but I also want to add on what Kuper says on the ""No royal road to poverty relief" section where he states that basically we as a society rather make volunteer donations and charity instead of the government taxing and intervening with this issue. So in some since Singer does have a point that we need to make donations. I mean if we as Americans are not allowing the US government to tax and intervene then we should be the ones coming up with all these donations.
I agree with Adrianna that Kupser is presenting the three main points regarding Singer's argument. What makes this section done so well is that Kuper constantly is listing the flaws of Singer's "Solutions". It's not just about donating, but figuring out a way to get the "Selfish" and the "Self-less" involved. By having people interact with people in need through political and economic relations. Kuper states several things that should be done that Singer isn't addressing at all. Singer is actually doing more damage to the poor than helping them. And Singer lists all of these flaws in Kupers ideas.
Becca Cohen
I agree with what adrianna said, especially the breakdown of each comparison he makes to singer.I loved how Kuper ties in a taste of sarcastic humor to continue keeping that relationship with his reader while building even more credibility. For example, on page 72 when he mentions how "he [Singer] can easily wade in and rescue the child, but he may dirty or even ruin his clothe, and fail to make the lecture", inwhich he uses this to kind of call out Singer for being a hipocrite for his own words while adding a humerous twist. using language like "vis-a-vis" just to compare people in developing countries with dying people supports the previous paragraph of mocking Singer. Little things like that stood out to me as humorous, and I think that Kuper knew it would.
Post a Comment