11/5/21
PHI 1120
Term Paper
The reading that I would like to expand on for the term paper that we were assigned is Peter Singer’s “Rich and Poor” reading. I chose this specific reading as I feel it pertains to a lot of discussions that are occurring in our society in terms of equality for all. This translates to the conversations we see in politics such as free healthcare/education and affordable housing. In the reading, Peter Singer argues whether or not the “affluent” members of society are responsible for the extreme poverty that currently exists in the world. Furthermore, Singer argues if the responsibility falls on such member of society to alleviate the struggles that effect the poverty-ridden population. A common response to this argument is that the poverty-ridden population is lazy and does not want to put in the necessary work required to get them out of the conditions that they are in. This response, while true for a small fraction of people, is problematic as it neglects the issues that are occurring in terms of how wealth is distributed in our society. An example we can observe of this phenomenon in recent times is the shocking wealth transfer that occurred during the pandemic. According to many published articles, such as the Institute for Policy Studies, U.S. billionaires became 62 percent richer during the pandemic while most Americans were heavily impacted. This includes the 86 million Americans who lost their jobs and others whose businesses failed due to the mandated restrictions (Institute for Policy Studies, 2021). In addition, many Americans were subject to predatory like behaviors from banks and other financial lending institutions despite the unprecedented nature of the pandemic like when it came to overdraft fees, credit card penalties and others. Seeing these examples and many others gets a person to not help but think that there is some sort of responsibility that the “affluent” members of our society have on the poverty-ridden population. Peter Singer, in the reading, backs up his argument by pointing out that the hording nature of the “affluent” with regards to wealth contributes to this strong disparity between both populations.
He goes on to argue that if a person is able to prevent something bad than they should do just that. However, the problem that occurs is with the connection he made with the point that if a person has satisfied their needs and has extra resources than they should give those away. The problem with this suggestion is that it neglects any form of constraints or metrics of how much is defined as extra and at what threshold does a person have to reach where they must give resources away. This argument from Singer also comes from a false pretense that assumes all members of society are exactly the same in terms of backgrounds and needs. This, however, was not the only problematic argument that the author proposed in their writing.
Singer attempts to make a connection between a person that let someone die and a person that murders another. The way he bolsters this comparison is by claiming that if a person is living in opulence and chooses not to financially aid those that are poor, then they are allowing them to die. This suggestion is very problematic as it attempts to label a group of people with the same attributes as a murderer. Tying someone else’s fate to a completely irrelevant individual is not a connection that should be made as it is a dynamic that is far to nuanced to categorize into one setting. Another important question to answer is where the line is drawn in terms of who should be helped and who should if they are to blame themselves for the conditions that they are in. Members of society should always help out those who are less fortunate than they are, but they are not directly responsible to each of their fates. These last arguments, I believe, derail the author’s original argument at the beginning of their writing as it attempts to make incoherent claims about dynamics in society. All of these analyses are important points that need to be considered before entertaining these series of ideas.
Singer in his reading “Rich and Poor” attempted to argue the idea whether the more affluent members of society are responsible for the extreme poverty that exists in the world. Starting off, the author makes suggestions that the rich have indeed a responsibility to addressing world poverty. The author, however, began going off the tracks with their argument when he began making claims such as the idea that if a person who has extra resources after sufficing their own needs should give it away. In addition to that claim was the connection the author attempted to make between the rich “letting people die” and murders. As mentioned earlier, humans should strive to help out one another, but they are simply not responsible for every turn in another person’s life. This takes away from the responsibility each person has to work on themselves and to better their conditions.
Work Cited
Institute for Policy Studies. (2021, August 24). U.S. billionaires got 62 percent Richer during pandemic. They’re now up $1.8 trillion. https://ips-dc.org/u-s-billionaires-62-percent-richer-during-pandemic/
The post 11/5/21 PHI 1120 Term Paper The reading that I would like to appeared first on PapersSpot.
