I was at first not interested and here is my reasoning. They are obviously a lot better off than the average American. This means there sacrifices although they appear only minorly restricting to this paticular family could put a lot of other families in a financial crisis. It was a pretty crazy idea, especially since the whole idea was sparked from the quip of their 14 year old daughter. I personally wouldn't take anything my teenage kids say to heart because their personalities are so unstable that they would probobly be feeling completely different about the subject tommarow. The whole point of the story is that we are trained in a capitalist society to believe that we must keep striding for more and more money. That money is happiness. They are trying to show you that giving people is what really brings you happiness and you don't need all the fiscal things you think you need.
This kind of made me realize a huge flaw in Peter Singer's argument. The only reason his idea would ever work is because it is in theory, aka it won't work. People exploit things, thats a fact. If people realize they don't have to work hard to make as much basically as their neighbor who spent 12 years in college. They will start slacking off and eventually stop working. This will cause everyone to become impoverished. The one way their thing works and Singers doesn't is because their's still gives an incintive to work hard and push yourself.
I believe there is a happy medium that I've realized can exist. You don't need to keep all the money you earn for yourself. Thats a given. You howewver cannot give everything but the bare minimum away because I already discussed the outcome of that. I still believe it would be morally appropriate to give a substantial (not all) of your excess money to some charity. I also believe it is important to set aside money to ensure for the better future of the world.
I would never consider making such a dramatic change. I am a selffish person and am completely aware of it. However, if my parents made the decision, and I was unable to talk them out of it. I suppose I could live with some cut backs in my life.
It would have to be a family change however because the only thing that would keep me going is seeing the suffering of others to make me feel better about myself.
This kind of made me realize a huge flaw in Peter Singer's argument. The only reason his idea would ever work is because it is in theory, aka it won't work. People exploit things, thats a fact. If people realize they don't have to work hard to make as much basically as their neighbor who spent 12 years in college. They will start slacking off and eventually stop working. This will cause everyone to become impoverished. The one way their thing works and Singers doesn't is because their's still gives an incintive to work hard and push yourself.
I believe there is a happy medium that I've realized can exist. You don't need to keep all the money you earn for yourself. Thats a given. You howewver cannot give everything but the bare minimum away because I already discussed the outcome of that. I still believe it would be morally appropriate to give a substantial (not all) of your excess money to some charity. I also believe it is important to set aside money to ensure for the better future of the world.
I would never consider making such a dramatic change. I am a selffish person and am completely aware of it. However, if my parents made the decision, and I was unable to talk them out of it. I suppose I could live with some cut backs in my life.
It would have to be a family change however because the only thing that would keep me going is seeing the suffering of others to make me feel better about myself.
RSS Feed