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?
14 comments:
On page 77 in the last part of section “Why Charity is Never Enough” Kuper is summing up his argument. He believes that Singers analogies actually distract his audience from the fundamental’s that make up poverty and opportunity. Kuper believes there are many roles that people can take to help world poverty. Donating your money like Singer believes people should do, is not the only way to help solve world poverty, or the best way at that matter. He also believes that people need to think about poor when they doing things. For example think about where you are buying your new shirt from and who your purchase will benefit. He says its not how much we give away but its what people do with it that makes the difference. Kuper wants people to think practically and realize that the solution to world poverty is not easy, unlike Singer who does not take real demands seriously.
In reply to Kristen Wood,
I agree! Kind of going along with some things I said in Megan's "Conclusion," Kuper . I kind of like the example that he gives about Singer giving up his career as a lecturer to devote all of his every day to save all of the saving children and become a lifeguard when walking to work. It reminded me of one of Singer's hypothetical type of examples, but he used it to explain it for his own argument. It doesn't do much to give up one's own "vital resources" to help everyone because it only leads to impoverishing our own human lives to deal with such issues of poverty. Not saying, we should not help a drowning child if we see them sinking in the pool. But yeah, pretty much there are so many other ways to actively engage in helping build up the poor and still allow others to benefit as well. One being to help the percent of tourism in places in Africa increase from 2.5% to 10% or 15% in order to help increase the income of the families that are selling goods. Keeping them in mind when making these purchases and also getting things that we like, will benefit us all, but most importantly allow the poor to support their families. So yeah, Kristen, you hit the point in your post!
-Adrianna Boles
In response to Kristen:
That seems to be exactly what Kuper is doing in the last section of "Why Charity is Never Enough." I will add that in this last section, some vocabulary people may have not know I have looked up:
(1)Abstract: difficult to understand, thought a part from actual incidences.
(2) Laissez-fair: The government cannot intervene in economic private affairs
(3) dynamics: forces and motions that characterize a system
As Kristen Wood wrote, the section " Why Charity is Never Enough" is where the author, Andrew Kuper explains that giving charity simply isn't enough. At first this seemed as a doubtful claim, but Kuper effectively shows that solving the problem of the poor is a lot more complicated then by just giving them money. In the fifth part of this section Kuper says that we should keep an eye on the agencies that can best help. This is seemingly saying that Kuper does not trust the people that are so called helping the poor. Kuper explains that in order to solve the problem of the poor we much change the social status of other classes, such as the middle or wealthy classes. If your are wealthy then you need to look at yourself and ask if you are about the economical standard of living for an individual. If you are then you should obviously be giving to the poor but ask Kuper suggest this realization of being too rich never happens. We need to figure out a way to allow the poor to have the opportunity to gain wealth on their own.
In response to Kristen Wood's comment:
Kuper does want people to think more practically and see that the solution to poverty isn't as easy as Singer says it does. I want to elaborate on that idea and say that Singer does not seem to think "outside of the box" as some would say. He seems so focused on his version of helping the poor, but instead there are so many other resources we can use to aid them. For example we could spend our money and vacations and consume things from these countries to stimulate their economy. Kuper realizes and sees all these other solutions such as political affairs and believes that Singer's solution, isn't a solution at all.
In response to Kristen Wood, Kuper seems to be making all of the claims she summarized. Yet, I would add, one of his main focus in the second to last paragraph would be based on how people determine poverty. Kuper says there are many factors to what a real impoverish society might be and we need to make judgment of these when we decide to donate to a cause.
On page 76 in the section of "Why Charity is Never Enough" Kuper is explaining how taking away luxuries can affect the rich and the poor. Singer is claiming that instead of rich people going to beach resorts, buying expensive clothes, or decorating their house they should donate the money they use to those who really need it. Kuper disagrees. He mentions how it helps those who are not poor in developing countries to stay that way. Rich people visiting luxurious tourist places in developing countries help provide a salary for the poor people that live there. So what Kuper is saying is that Singer is right by saying that rich people do not need to waste their money on luxuries but is wrong by saying that if they do that they are not helping the poor people.
In response to Kristen Wood
Andrew Kuper states that Singer’s solution on poverty relief is a method not enough to actually help the poor get out of their poverty crisis. As Singer claims, the prosperous should donate part of their income that they use for unnecessary materials. However, Kuper points that even with that contribution will have no effect at all. For instance, Kuper provides an example about contributing to the AIDS organization. He infers that even if one were to contribute to the AIDS organization, it is more of a contribution to the structural and economic reforms for that country. The donation has nothing to do with the AIDS organization at all. I agree with Kuper’s idea that possibly donating actual materials or objects can help the poor simply because such certain donations are specifically targeted to the poor. On the other hand, money donations can end up to such things that others will think will help with poverty relief, but it may actually not benefit the poor at all.
In response to Silvia.
Singer does state that we need to stop spending our money on luxurious and donate the rest to organizations. But Kuper isn’t stating that Singer is right about spending money on luxurious, Kuper means that it is okay to spend on luxurious, just do so in a manner that would help poverty places. Like spend a luxurious vaccination in a place that uses the tourist money. People who have the money to vacation and want to, they will go on vacation regardless what someone says. So the smart thing to do according to Kuper is attract them to places that are in need of the money.
In Response to Tiffany Ann
I disagree about your Aids comment, in page 75, he says that even if he decides to donate to an Aid organization his donation would be thwarted by President Mbeki's campaign that HIV does not cause Aids. So then he says because of this remark he should help their economic reform, he never said that the donation would go to economic reforms. He said that because of the Presidents remark donating to Aids might prove useless so instead he should try to donate to structural and economical reforms. Then he says doing this may do harm than good also, since their government will have more money to oppress their citizens.
KInd of going along with what Belle said,
I totally agree that Singer is not thinking outside the box. Yes Belle is right about that there are so many other ways we could be helping these countries that are in need. We do not necessarily have to be sending money per say but maybe some food come military help or like Belle states plan vacations and trips to those countries to stimulate their income. And yes many think that wow I don't want to visit that place or that situation but I mean if we are not helping them economical help them in another way.
I agree with Kuper's idea of how donating money is not the only thing that can fight poverty. There is a lot that can be done. When it comes to donating, people can donate money, food, cloth, etc. But people can also help by actually taking time off and helping these people in person. For example if you are not donating money you can be helpful by using a skill that you have, which could be building houses, performing surgery, or installing water filters.
In the section titled, "Why Charity is not Enough" Kuper addresses the fact that there are more solutions to solving world poverty other than simply donating to organizations as stated in Singer's claim. Kuper suggests that donating to an AIDS organization would prove useless and instead we should donate to economical reforms. By donating to these economical reforms Kuper claims that since adequate employment opportunities are the leading determinant or people's ability to live a stable life for themselves and their families donating to these economical and structural reforms would provide them with these jobs.
In "why charity is never enough" kuper explains how singer is wrong when it comes to donating money to charities. He states that the money isnt necessarily going to be going to the places it is intended to go. For example the aids epidemic. Kuper believes in setting up businesses to have the societies be a part of the global economy. He goes through the lists of how singer is wrong and provides good evidence against him.
Post a Comment