Making a decision between donating $200 to save the life of a sick 2-year old or keeping the money for ourselves, i think, showed the way people viewed Peter Singer's article. I stood towards the wall of people that made the decision that they would not give away $200. It may seem kind of selfish, but I wasn't so convinced that giving away my $200 would actually save a child's life. How would I know if it actually went towards helping the child and wasn't used for something else? How would I know if it weren't jut a scam to get my money? Maybe if I knew a specific person or family that my donated money was going towards to help, then I may be more willing. I would actually like to see the impact that my money will make on a child's life. I think a lot of the people that made a similar decision to mine feel this way as well. For Singer to tell us that we all need to donate $200 was, I thought, kind of rude. He also said that we could all live on $30,000 for our whole lives. Although he donates 10% of his income every year, I doubt he lives alone on just $30,000. This is hypocritical and he should not be telling people what to do with their money if he doesn't even do it himself. Not that I don't agree or believe that donating money can't help people but I would rather literally do something about it. I am more satisfied with myself when I'm able to know who I'm helping and the impact I make on them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment