Reading Response- Poverty

Chitra Divakaruni's "Live Free and Starve" argues that a bill that passed the US House designed to improve the lives of children throughout the world by outlawing child labor is counterproductive in that such labor is the only means of sustaining themselves available to many children of third world countries. I agree with the author in her argument that for improvement of children's lives in developing countries, a more holistic approach is needed. Divakaruni writes, "A bill like the one we've just passed is of no use unless it goes hand in hand with programs that will offer a new life to these newly released children." I agree, and while I have difficulty with the notion that America has an interminable moral obligation to all children-or indeed, all people- if America should wish to aid children abroad, we should do so in a manner that accounts for underlying factors and not merely symptoms. One bias I have in this situation is toward extensive evaluation of the entirety of an effort, resulting from my debate experience and my parent's anthropological background. This encourages me to side with Divakaruni, and I do.

Peter Singer's "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" advocates that citizens of wealthy nations donate as close to all of their disposable income to charity in order to alleviate poverty. While I believe that the work of UNICEF, OXFAM, and such organizations is vitally important to humanitarian efforts, Singer commits multiple logical fallacies that weaken his argument. For example, Singer argues against group-think, writing, "We do not excuse them [Germans who didn't stop Nazi atrocities] because others were behaving no better." And yes, group-think can be bad- but it can also have immense positive results. For example, volunteerism is heightened by its social component. Singer also leaves unproven the assertion that individuals have a moral obligation to assist others to their own detriment, thus leaving untouched the most important philosophical question inherent in his scenarios. A bias present here is my rejection of utter utilitarianism, as to me such a concept justifies genocide, discrimination, and numerous other societal ills. This bias leads me to reject Singer's philosophical argument, while accepting much of his practical argument.