Yesterday, the class discussed the essay we read the night before called, "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" by Peter Singer. It was about the world of poverty and how people should give more to help the poor people of the world. Then, Mr. Watson assigned us to watch a movie which fit right in with the essay called, "4 Generations" by Robert Thompson. It was about an American man who lives in China who finds out from a weblog that there was a fake charity that said they'd give a poor family in Asia a Water Buffalo for $250, but there were no actual Water Buffalo. So he asked around the farming community and found out that a Water Buffalo is actually the equivalent of a year's salary to them. So he decided to collaborate with the writer of the blog and donate a Water Buffalo to the most deserving poor family in China.
My initial reaction to the movie was that I was very touched by the actions of the men, but especially by the speechless reaction of the family. I thought this video related to the essay because they were both focused on poverty, and I thought Thompson's video branched off of Singer's essay in a way. In the essay, Singer said that $200 could save someone's life, and the Water Buffalo is very much like the $200, although it's not necessarily saving someone's life. After looking at both the essay and video, my question is which method of donating to the poor is better?
3 comments:
I think that there is no right or wrong organization or need to donate to.
Personally, I believe that small actions such as donating a $250 Water Buffalo to ONE family in rural China go unseen.
A question I have for you is: do you think it is more significant for a "poor" adult to be selfless and donate $200 to save a child's life, using all of his money except for that needed for necessities, or for a millionaire to donate $200,000, leaving plenty of his wealth to be spent on himself (possibly a Bugatti? haha)?
In my opinion, it would be more significant for the "poor" adult to be selfless, but then again, the millionaire is saving 999 more lives than the "poor" man. What do you think?
Definitely the way of "4 generations" is a better way to donate. I mean, no matter how much we donate, we cant save the world; were just one person. I believe making a difference in one persons life at a time. No need to cripple ourselves and donate so much we have to go on welfare, instead, we should focus on making a positive difference in one person (or family) at a time.
Sorry Kevin. I didn't check my comments. Also, thanks Michael for your comment.
So Kevin, in my opinion I definately agree with your thought that saving one family can go unseen. As for the poor adult/millionaire thing, It's really hard to say the millionaire is doing a more significant deed because in reality, he is, because he's saving a significantly larger amount of lives. It's just that the poor man is sacrificing more. So to answer your question, morally, I think the poor man is doing a more significant deed, but in reality the rich man is.
Post a Comment