I could understand and even agree with points from either side, easily. The only bias I could think of for these arguments is that I read "Live Free and Starve" first, and therefore went into the second article agreeing with the first. My real problem is that I can never tell what I should think. I have a hard time basing things off of what I think, and find myself thinking while I'm reading the articles, "Which one would my parents agree with?"
The first article, "Live Free and Starve," was written by Chitra Divakaruni, a woman who was raised in India, and immigrated to America when she was eighteen. She begins the article by talking about a bill, one that would make it so that the United States could no longer import goods from factories that had used forced or indentured child labor. Her friends think it's a triumphant advancement in human rights. Problem is, Divakaruni knows what it's like for those children living in indentured service, and also knows what it's like to live in another country, one not bogged down by American standards. Divakaruni makes the point that, "It is easy for those of us in America to make the error of evaluating situations in the rest of the world as though they were happening in this country and propose solutions that make excellent sense-in the context of [American] society," pointing out that it's hard for us to know exactly what is going on in other countries, and why what is normal for us is not normal for other countries. Those who live in other countries need those jobs to provide for their families; if they don't have those jobs, then sure, they are free. But at the same time, they also have no means of getting food to feed themselves, even in their leisure.
Singer's argument, cleverly titled "The Singer Solution to World Poverty," talks about ethics, and how easy it is for Americans to push things off. When faced with a hypothetical question in which a man has to choose between saving a child and saving his car, Singer talks about how many people would say it is wrong that the man chose the car over the child. He goes on to say that, while it is easy for us to write this man off for choosing such a thing in this hypothetical situation, everyday we turn down the opportunity to donate to places such as UNICEF, which is, in Singer's opinion, just as bad. With Singer's argument, this opinion pops up several times as he talks to us about how bad it is that everyday, wealthy American citizens buy things they don't need instead of sending money off to help a dying kid somewhere in the world. I find the article itself full of opinions, and though there are some facts that back him up, he comes back around with opinions again and again. Singer says that, "we seem to lack a sound basis for drawing a clear moral line between Bob's situation and that of any reader of this article with $200 to spare who does not donate it to an overseas aid agency. These readers seem to be acting at least as badly as Bob was acting when he chose to let the runaway train hurtle toward the unsuspecting child," to which he uses as a sort of conclusion to a part of his article, expecting it to be taken as fact, when it is really his thoughts on the matter.
Like I said at the beginning, I agree with parts of both articles. I agree that it's hard to make decisions concerning people in nations that you've never been to, and who you don't know the situation of, but I also think that we shouldn't just sit here and let that continue to be that way. I also think that it is a good idea to donate to organizations such as UNICEF, but I don't think that not donating to them is the same as choosing to let a child die instead of having your car destroyed. I don't think that buying things that you don't need is a sign that you are a horrible human being, because you decided to go out to eat instead of sending money to an aid organization. But then again, that's just my opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment