I personally
have a hard time wrapping my mind around the new definition of philanthropy.
While in class we have learned that anyone can be a philanthropist, when I hear
the word “philanthropy” I immediately think of multi-billionaires that make
donations to local and global charities. In The
Life You Can Save, Peter Singer makes the argument that both the wealthy
and not-so-wealthy are equally capable of eradicating poverty and saving a
life. While I wholeheartedly agree with this argument, I strongly disagree with
Singer’s suggestion of giving every spare penny to charity. Of course there is
no way to make such a statement without sounding selfish, so I will go on to
explain myself. According to Singer, we all have possessions we don’t
necessarily need. It’s actually quite alarming how much clothes individuals
have that they never wear, and the amount of money individuals spend on a
ridiculous items they hardly use. However, I do believe there are some
essentials that individuals must have in their lives, such as a retirement fund.
Singer argues, “By saving money for retirement, we are effectively refusing to
use that money to save lives” (14). While his argument holds great truth
(because here we are saving for the future while impoverished individuals can
barely make it through the present), I want to ensure that my family and I can
live comfortably (not lavishly) now and in old age. This is not to say that
donations cannot be made, but that they should be made without negatively
affecting the life of the donor.
Another
interesting point to which Singer brings attention is the institutional causes
of poverty, which has much—if not everything—to do with capitalism. This
semester I am enrolled in HDEV 366: Poverty and Discrimination, which spends a
great deal of class time discussing why some individuals are impoverished while
are others are not, and how such disparities in wealth even exist. While the
central focus of the course is poverty in the US, the points made in The Wealth Inequality Reader (the course
textbook) can be applied to SCHL 280: Philanthropy and Civil Society. According
to editors Sam Pizzigati and Linda Pinklow, “A small segment of the top 1%…have
worked over many decades to rig the rules of the economy to favor the 1% at the
expense of the 99%... These rules range from government policies related to
taxation and global trade to matters of regulation and levels of public
spending. All these rule changes, taken together, have led to massive
imbalances of wealth and power that jeopardize peace and prosperity across the
globe” (VIII). Members of the 1% have no desire to relinquish their position of
wealth and power, so to secure their status they have used said wealth and
power to structure policies that are in their favor. Global trade, for
instance, might be a huge reason why developing countries remain impoverished and
why the developed countries that exploit them continue to prosper. Singer
brings to our attention that resource-rich developing countries are typically
the countries with incidences of corruption, coups, and civil wars as a result of
the interest international companies have in them (31). This interest has
repeatedly resulted in the creation of dictators that work hand in hand with
wealthy companies.
The question of
how to eradicate poverty has been mulled over for centuries. We have the
wealthy that want to remain wealthy, and the impoverished with little to no
power to do anything about their circumstance. Where does the fight against
poverty begin? At the individual level (the argument made by Singer) or at the institutional
level (the argument made by of Pizzigati and Pinklow)?
This post expressed many of the sentiments that I have come to feel upon completion of The Life You Can Save. Although many of the notions suggested by Singer make sense when one considers the statistics he presents, I found that in many cases he seems to be asking unrealistic things of individuals. I think your example of his presentation of retirement as selfish was particularly effective in demonstrating this point. In my opinion, someone who works their whole life has earned the right to sufficient funds to minimize the struggles that come with old age. Singer does present reasonable suggestions, such as cutting back on luxuries and donating the leftover money to charity, but after reading this article, I feel that institutional reform should be a top priority. While individuals can certainly be encouraged to give what they have, it seems that their donations will not have the greatest impact upon those in need until the economic exploitation of underprivileged nations is overcome. Thus, I believe that the fight against poverty should begin with a battle against the oppression that worsens the conditions in many already struggling nations. However, despite what stage this fight against injustice is at, individuals should support the impoverished to the highest degree they find possible given their circumstances. When a change comes about that allows institutions and individuals to join forces to combat poverty, the struggle to save the worlds poor will surely become significantly more effective.
ReplyDeletePart of what Emma is talking about in the first paragraph, where she believes that people have the right to save up for retirement and their families, has to do with Singer's reasoning behind why people don't give more. One reason is parochialism, people tend to help those that are closer to them. Because we have a connection with our families and friends it's completely understandable to feel that our hard work and what we earn should be helping the ones we care about most first, which tend to be the people we are closest too. This does not mean we are greedy people, it means that we have values and we can find ways to help in another way. This is why I agree with Michelle's blog as well as Emma's because we can donate our time and effort to help and volunteer; and in that way we can become more connected to whichever cause it may be and as that connection grows we will feel more inclined to give monetary donations to something that has grown close to us and has a stronger value to us. I believe that volunteering is just as important as donating money and gives a strong meaning to the community.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both Emma and Laura when they say that Singer is asking individuals to donate unrealistic amounts of money to honorable causes. As I began reading the first page of "The Life You Can Save," where Singer describes the pond scenario, I already knew that I would disagree with Singer's view on philanthropy. I don't think that one can compare spending extra money on a small luxury, to letting a child drown in a pond because, as Singer later argued, helping an identifiable individual is a very different situation. When one is presented with an identifiable individual, emotions come into play and one is more likely to give aid. To me, it seems to me that there are contradicting statements in Singer's writing.
ReplyDeleteEmma, you make a good point at the end of your first paragraph when touching upon Singer's view of retirement funds; "[donations] should be made without negatively affecting the life of the donor." I whole-heartedly agree with this statement. I am a strong supporter of making donations on a yearly basis, however, I don't believe that the stability of the donor should be compromised. When I have a stable career and can afford to make yearly donations, I will certainly make a donation, however, I will limit my donations to ensure that I will not encounter financial troubles in my future. I believe that the quality of my life and the quality of my family's life comes before the life of unidentifiable individuals.
I look forward to hearing everyone else's opinions in class on Tuesday.
Hi Emma,
ReplyDeleteIt just so happens that we have very similar views on these subjects. Firstly, I would like to comment on your argument about saving for the future. I got the notion several times while reading The Life You Can Save that Singer was going slightly overboard in his argument. I do not believe that it is reasonable to tell your readers to not save up for their retirement, as often times more than one person is dependent on that fund. Further, regardless of any argument Singer has made regarding the social bias behind "donating too much money" I still do not think that it is reasonable to ask someone to reevaluate every aspect of their life to find every single dollar to donate to charity. In my opinion, you are more likely to make donating money a social norm if you don't disparage people for going to the movies once a month or eating out on special occasions.
Secondly, being an economics major, it was nice to see your references to the injustices in the American tax system. Many of America's top earners take advantage of loopholes in the tax system to pay ridiculously low percentages of income to their own government, let alone those people in developing nations with severely corrupt governments! Singer touched briefly on the problems of our government that make it more difficult for developing nations to grow economically (i.e. tariffs). However, he quickly dismissed any hope for correcting them stating that we would be better off just donating our money directly to those nations, though I disagree. I think that all it takes is greater awareness of how many privileged Americans are cheating the system at a costly expense, both domestically and globally.
Finally, while I believe that globalization can potentially be a benefit to all nations involved, it is up to western economic leaders to display ethical trade practices so governments like that of Nigeria cannot neglect their citizens just because government revenue is coming from oil and not taxes. Anyway, I rambled a lot but that's my take. Great post.