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:
Kuper points out that people such as actors or athletes who are well-known and have the attention of people can be very successful in coordinating relief efforts. For example, Oprah was successful in opening up schools and hospitals in Africa and Ron Artest of the Lakers raised $500,000 for mental health awarness.
Ad hoc intervention means to focus on one purpose only. And Kuper is against this idea and says that we should also look at fixing the social system.
In the final paragraph of this section, Kuper says philosophers should not be accused for not taking action. What is expected of them is to evaluate their own argument and identify the restrictions. It is especially required when dealing with someone as controversial and open as Singer. Kuper states that it is not a good respond to argue that the economy will become better if left alone even if philosophers such as Kuper and Singer do not take action. Kuper utters that Singer wishes to spark moral rights and political movements which he hopes will change how everyone lives.
Kuper points out that the Singerian tendency is to treat individuals in developing countries as “wholly recipients or moral patients.” But Kuper argues that they are not powerless or ignorant but they need to be addressed as individuals who are capable of independent action. I do agree with Kuper because if people view third-world countries as helpless individuals, they would always have to depend on donations and charities to serve them and not being able to grow independent on their own. Kuper addresses that in Singer’s philosophy the “we” are single and fairly undifferentiated wealthy individuals but the “we” Rawls addresses are the individuals are organized into cooperative groups and societies.
Kuper is gives seven reasons why judging the courses of action in order to change the situation is not possible. He states that we as a people will not make hasty choices that are below what is expected just because we are forced by horrible conditions and tragedies. The second reason is that we focus on ways in which our situations and our locations (context) makes us vulnerable to others. The third reason is that a "structure sensitive" approach makes us focus more on the indirect actions rather than the long term consequences. And lastly the fourth reason why he states that judging the course of action in order to change the situation is not possible is because inequality can be justified.
Kuper points out that Rawls’s viewpoint on creating cooperative groups will not help with poverty relief. He compares Rawls’s philosophy to the Marxism concept and presents the idea that making institutional reforms from time to time does not actually solve the problem on poverty. Rawls and Marx’s philosophy is to form relations or groups that could serve as a foundation in making a better economic system. However, Kuper believes that making economic and structural changes to a nation are not at all benefiting the poor. In this section, Kuper points out that such philosophy should be critically evaluated first to see if it is capable of making positive global changes.
Becca Cohen (accidently posted originally under other political subtitle)
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