Comparing Solutions to Poverty in the World.doc

Comparing Solutions to Poverty in the WorldbyDavid LiuWriting 39BProfessor ConcannonMarch 22, 2004AcknowledgementsFor this essay, I would like to thank my suitemates, Eduardo Rivera and Luis Flores, for allowing me to read their essays in order to help get ideas on ways to organize and compose my essay. I would also like to thank my peer editors Dave Giannino and Jill Nakamura.In todays society, how often does one run into an instance of poverty? A more important question might be how often does one do something about it? It is not hard nowadays to see a homeless person on the side of the road and chances are, it would not be hard to find a person out there who has turned their head to a homeless person instead of offering some help. Does that make every person in society a cold-hearted monster? Peter Singer addresses this question in his essay, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” by stating that it is not up to society to feel horrible about the insensitivity of its actions; instead, it is societys responsibility to realize the excess of leisure it experiences in its every day life. If each individual were to donate this excess to the “poor,” it would be the first major step toward eliminating all poverty from the world, according to Singer. Following the same lines is Garrett Hardin who, like Singer, is supportive of American society realizing their beneficial situation; however he argues that instead of donating these luxuries, society should utilize them to the fullest. Also, in Hardins world, these “luxuries” become seats in a lifeboat (which represent certain limited resources) that are available only within the wealthy nations, while the poor are left to struggle and compete for any remaining seats in the lifeboat. Though these conditions sound harsh, Hardin is able to establish a more convincing stand on the problem of poverty by using a well-structured set of reasonable points that make it easier for the reader to agree with him. Singer, however, struggles to find solid ground in his argument, as he trusts the reader to be convinced by a series of weak examples that fall short because of continuing flaws and his degrading tone.One tactic that both authors use is binary logic; the reason one author is able to establish a more convincing argument is through the different ways each uses their binary logic. Quite frequently throughout his essay, Singer uses binary logic in his attempts to sway the reader onto his side. While this type of logic can be useful in many cases because of the fact that it forces the reader to choose a side, Singer makes a mistake by implementing it in his argument since he actually causes the reader to take the opposing side. Singers main scenario on which he bases the majority of his points is the one involving Bob, a Bugatti, and a child who is about to be killed by a runaway train. After describing the situation to the reader, the author proposes a choice: either save the Bugatti or save the child. While this tactic does cause the reader to start realizing the futility of all the luxuries they own, the situation becomes too specific upon further analysis to provide a solid argument. The reader finds themselves estranged and in an awkward position when Singer asks them to make a decision. This feeling is enhanced, as Singer offers no alternatives to an already bizarre predicament. The fact that the situation is introduced as happening to another person, as well as the extreme rarity of the circumstances, causes the reader to not only disagree with the authors stance, but to retract themselves from the situation completely. After the reader has done so, Singers logic tends to backfire on him as now both the reader and the author are looking at the situation from the outside. Because Singer makes no mention of any action he has taken, it causes Singers logic and tone to sound hypocritical. By doing this, Singer has made his utilization of binary logic entirely ineffective. A much more efficient use of binary logic can be seen in Garrett Hardins essay, “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor.” Hardins representation of the world as a lifeboat where only the wealthy nations are granted seats within the boat provides a much more effective use of binary logic. Hardin, in the same way Singer does, presents a choice to the reader by creating a life and death situation; however, unlike Singer, Hardin includes the reader as well as himself in the unfortunate setting. In addition to this, Hardin produces a more convincing argument since the situation he is describing to the reader is far closer to reality than Singers. Hardins scenario, though it may be somewhat crude and lacking details, is a direct representation of the world, while Singer uses a scenario that is entirely fictional. The reader will obviously place much more stock in a decision made based on reality, and since Hardin has already created an obvious choice for the reader to take, he has already established a much stronger argument, while Singer is still struggling to get a decision out of the reader.Hardin later informs the reader that the decision (whether or not to let others into the lifeboat) will be made by both of them together. By including himself with the reader and utilizing a direct appeal to the reader, Hardin automatically creates an unspoken bond between the two that helps to quicken the readers decision to side with Hardin. Because of this bond that Hardin has created, he is able to further convince the reader that his “solution clearly offers the only means of his and the readers survival” even though “it is morally abhorrent to many people” (453). In this line, Hardin is further able to use his binary logic through such words as “clearly” and “only”; with these words, not only does Hardin make the decision black and white for the reader, but he also underlines which one is the right answer. Once again, he is able to do this because he himself is in the lifeboat with the reader, and is also making the same decision. Hardin also strengthens his point with the phrase “morally abhorrent to many people”. There is no doubt that the reader may have guilt regarding their choice to ignore those who do not have a seat in the lifeboats, however, when Hardin reminds the reader that this was a horrible situation no matter what the readers choice was, he is able to strengthen the readers resolve about their decision. Throughout this particular portion of the text, Hardin is acknowledging the readers guilt and comforting them, as he continually reminds the reader that the people who may be looking down on the reader are also looking down on him, further strengthening the bond between himself and the reader.Singer uses a direct appeal to the reader as well, however it is in vain due to the previously mentioned hypocritical tone that he uses. Unlike Hardin who places himself next to the reader and in the same dilemmas, Singer chooses to simply watch the reader as they struggle to make a decision between the Bugatti and the childs life. While this technique is efficient in illustrating Singers point of the excess of leisure the reader most likely has in their life, it also causes the reader to feel defensive, as if Singer is accusing them of a crime. In addition to this, Singers tone when talking to the reader is similar to a schoolteacher scolding a student for making a wrong decision. This is evident when Singer informs the reader that “they, too, have opportunities to save the lives of children” (440). Singer knows that the majority of his audience (which he assumes to be the higher class citizens of America), most likely have never taken any action toward helping the poor. Because of this, his mention of these opportunities causes the reader to feel guilty; while this may be part of his objective, the ultimate result is the distancing between Singer and the reader. Later in the essay, Singer informs the reader of actual organizations they can call as well as the phone numbers to these organizations, knowing full-well in the back of his mind that the reader will not call them. This causes the reader to feel as though Singer is scolding the reader for their wrongdoings and in turn weakens his argument.Another aspect of his essay that is lacking is a strong visualization of his argument. In Singers world, everything has a monetary value: a dinner in a fancy restaurant, a car, even a childs life. Singer quotes Peter Ungers figure of $200, which is all that is needed in order to save a childs life. Using this as foundation, Singer constructs an entire financial plan for the reader through which they will be able to save as many children as financially possible. According to his essay, an “American household spends around $30,000 annually on necessities” (443), and therefore should be able to donate the rest of their annual earnings to the worlds poor. After analyzing this plan, the reader is able to identify all of the flaws in Singers argument. By placing a monetary value on everything in a persons life, Singer is saying that every time the reader goes to a meal in a restaurant, it is because it saves money, or perhaps because the reader simply has the money to spend. Singer disregards the fact that it might be because of a favorite meal or some emotion that is evoked when the reader eats in that particular restaurant. Singer makes another mistake my claiming that each American household spends $30,000 a year on necessities. First of all, Singers source for this statistic is an organization named the “Conference Board”, a name that does lend much credibility to the statement. Secondly, Singer fails to acknowledge the fact that America also has a large poor population that spends much less than the proposed figure on necessities. Thirdly, is it possible for Singer to be able to know what the necessities for each family in America are? Even if he was able to do so, his idea of donating the rest of the households income to charity is illogical for two main reasons: the unspent money is usually saved for planned purchases in the future or saved simply for purchases that the household is not aware of yet. As each of these flaws comes to light, Singer makes it more and more difficult to establish any type of argument as it continually is being broken down. When compared to Singer, it is evident that Hardin presents a much stronger case through his visualization of his points and his explanation of each to the reader. Hardin makes it a point to constantly remind the reader that he is with them, making the same decisions in the same situations. He does this by using the pronoun “we” frequently throughout his essay. By doing this, he creates an atmosphere that makes the reader feel like he is right there talking to them on the same level and in person, instead of scolding them from an authoritative stance. The level of comfort Hardin creates helps the reader to take in the information he presents in a more calm and logical manner. Another aspect of Hardins visualization of his argument that is comparable to Singers is the evidence that he uses. While Singer uses facts and figures that, for all the reader knows, may be made up, Hardin proposes statistics in a certain way so that the reader feels as though the information is reliable, even though there is no cited source. He does this by mentioning esteemed names such as “U.N. Secretary General Kurt Waldheim, and Senators Edward Kennedy and George McGovern” (455). Hardins occasional mention of important figures or names such as these, though it may be irrelevant, makes the reader believe that Hardin is a trustworthy source for all of his information. Hardins final technique in his visualization is in the actual evidence that he presents. While Singer depends on the reader to try and place a monetary value on their lives, Hardin simply presents a solid list of evidence that is based on logic and reason. Most of his evidence revolves around the concept of the “Tragedy of the Commons,” an idea that states that if all the resources in the world were available equally to all nations, humans would be able to practice enough restraint so that each nation received their fair share. According to Hardin, the poor nations would rush to grab as many resources as they could as soon as they could, seeing as how “every human born constitutes a draft on all aspects of the environment” (457). Hardin is able to use this view of the world, though it may seem harsh, because of his establishment of the lifeboat metaphor placing himself and the reader in the lifeboat, while the poor nations struggle to survive. By combining this idea along with statistics concerning the population growth rate of poor nations, Hardin is able to prove how the poor nations would constitute more of a drain on the worlds resources simply because of their population size, not just because they would not be able to practice enough restraint. Here, the reader is able to see how Hardin presented an idea of his, realized that the reader may not agree, and then presented logical and factual evidence that confirms his line of thinking, unlike Singer who continues to force-feed his ideas to the reader. Works CitedHardin, Garrett. “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor.” The Anteater Reader, edited by Ray B. Zimmerman and Carla Copenhaven. 7th Edition. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing, 2004. 452-460.Singer, Peter. “The Singer Solution to Poverty.” The Anteater Reader, edited by Ray B. Zimmerman and Carla Copenhaven. 7th Edition. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing, 2004. 439-444.Durning, Alan. “Asking How Much is Enough.” The Anteater Reader, edited by Ray B. Zimmerman and Carla Copenhaven. 7th Edition. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing, 2004. 461-469.Alan Durning, who received his education at Oberlin College and Observatory and is currently a full-time researcher for an environmental think tank called the Worldwatch Institute, claims in his essay that the human race must find a balance between overconsumption and poverty. Durnings evidence ranges from statistics regarding the different wealth of generations to quotes from various religions on the topic of consumption. Through his essay, Durning hopes to have the human race find the balance he speaks of, or at least begin asking themselves if they are consuming too much. His audience in this essay is both the wealthy nations and the nations in poverty around the world, as both need to realize that they are both part of the cause of the degradation of the worlds environment. Hardin, Garrett. “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor.” The Anteater Reader, edited by Ray B. Zimmerman and Carla Copenhaven. 7th Edition. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing, 2004. 452-460.Garrett Hardin, the Professor Emeritus of Biology at UC Santa Barbara and best known for his 1968 essay, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” argues in his essay that in order to solve the problem of poverty in the world, the rich and prosperous nations should not rush to donate their resources to t