Maximizing Self-Interest

I am only thinking about myself and have been conditioned by society that the poor are beneath me. Just as hooks states in her book, “Society is telling them that poverty and nihilism are one and the same. If they cannot escape poverty, then they have no choice but to drown in the image of a life that is valueless” (hooks, 198), we have been taught by society to believe that poverty and nihilism are synonymous, but this is not true. Just as it takes a village to raise a child, I believe it takes a nation to resolve the issue of poverty. Our society needs to dig deep to reignite the morals that generations in the past taught us; sharing our resources, whether monetarily or charitably, through understanding, kindness and generosity to those less fortunate. We all have to be ready to share liberally and recognize the fact that there are those who struggle and deserve attention paid to their struggles. By helping others who have not, we keep our humanity intact and maintain our ability to empathize and show compassion towards others. Our culture is based on working together and helping our neighbors. We need to stop considering the poor invisible and instead take personal steps to keep our communities thriving via good will towards others, and lending a helping hand. The poor, just as our environment, are our responsibility, and the sharing of resources is crucial to bringing an individual from poverty to a more

“About 29,000 children under the age of five – 21 each minute – die every day, mainly from preventable causes.” (http://www.unicef.org/mdg/childmortality.html) This means in the time it took you to read that first sentence, 2 children under the age of 5 died –likely from an avoidable cause. It shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that most of these deaths occur in developing countries; however, if we value all life as equal, shouldn’t this be more unsettling? In the article “What Billionaires Should Give & What You Should Give,” the Peter Singer examines several ideas surrounding the topic of philanthropy. The author agrees that we have a natural instinct and general responsibility to help those in need; however, there is much controversy over how that looks for billionaires and the average American.

What are some issues that threaten the immediate stability and balance of the world? War? Nukes? Global Warming? Economic fluctuations? The answer is none of the above. All of these are admissible issues, but they don’t come near to the immediate impact and effects that accompany world poverty. An estimated three billion people live on less than $2.50 a day, yet there hasn’t been any drastic actions taken to counteract this predicament in a sustaining manner (Shah). However, writers such as Peter Singer and Garrett Hardin are doing a stupendous job bringing this topic into the spotlight. Both “Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor,” and “The Singer Solution To World Poverty,” offer insight to this serious issue. Both authors

Peter Singer, a prominent moral philosopher and public intellectual, has written at length about many ethical issues. He subscribes to utilitarianism, which is the position that the best moral action is that which maximizes the well-being of conscious entities; this view is made apparent through his writings. In his essay What Should a Billionaire Give—and What Should You? Singer presents the idea that although the rich are capable of mitigating extreme poverty, there has been little improvement for the poorest 10 percent of the world’s population. He maintains that all life is equal and, therefore, saving the lives of the poor is a moral imperative for those who can afford to. “We are far from acting in accordance to that belief,”

Everyone deserves the chance to pursue happiness and better life. Some of the rich are born to rich, because their parents or grandparents are rich. They are rich because they are lucky, and they should be sympathetic to the poor who are not lucky as them. Although Singer argues that the rich should give away all the resource they have except their necessities for life, there is no clear definition for necessities. Thus, the rich can give away some of their money and resource to the poor by their will. Devoting in altruism, they can get the joy from helping others. Because there is not enough money for the poor to live better life without hard working, the poor will not depend on the aid from the rich but obtain their chance to improve themselves and make more

In the article Rich and Poor, Peter Singer sees extreme poverty as “not having enough income to meet the most basic human needs for adequate food, water, shelter, clothing, sanitation, health care or education” (pg. 234). Singer does not fail to compare those in extreme poverty to people who are living in absolute affluence. He suggests that it is the responsibility of those living in affluence to help those who are in need of obtaining even the basic human needs. He also argues that the affluent not helping is the moral equivalency of murder. Singer realizes that even though the rich can give to the poor these resources that they need, the rich do not feel enough of a moral mandate to do so. I disagree a bit with Singer because he seems to suggest that everyone who has the basic necessities is morally obligated to give but, I believe that this idea of a moral mandate to give should only apply to the extremely wealthy. Like Singer’s first premises says “If we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable significance, we ought to do it.” (243) If the absolute affluent have large amounts of money, they can help to at least make people live comfortably without losing anything of great significance. The increasing poverty rates, not just in America but, globally cannot be solved if the extremely wealthy continue to do wasteful spending and choose to not put their money more towards programs and charities that better the lives of the people in their

Growing up I was repeatedly told to make sacrifices for the greater good by giving through acts of charity. In a sense, by donating 16 percent of my grade to be distributed to those in my class I would be preforming an act of charity. Everyone cannot test perfectly all the time due to outside factors, such as a relative’s death, long hours at work, or illness. By promising others a “security blanket” of percentage points that will come their way if they happen to score lower than they intended, we are teaching them that mistakes are bound to happen, and when they do, their peers will be there to help them raise their grade in an act of generosity. These acts of humanity will allow our population to find the fine line where we are “equal before God and the law” so that we may carry out His work while simultaneously abiding by the basic rules and regulations of the United States of America (Vonnegut 1). If Professor Darr were to implement this way of grading into his future quizzes, we could push each other to study harder so that we may bring the average of the quiz up to a higher grade where people, such as myself, will not have to donate as much percentage points to their peers. Promoting study groups would also stimulate not only growth in our overall percentage as a class, but it would prevent the people who do not study or take a cheat sheet out of the garbage to use on the exam from scoring high without “putting in effort” (Moore). All of these factors would level the playing field as we take our exam, and leave all of us when a sense of satisfaction and gratitude knowing we were able to help others or that others were able to help us: in reality, we would all receive a blue ribbon because “we tried” (Vonnegut 3). By trying but still knowing we might receive a better grade than we earned because the average on the quiz was high than our

In his 2006 New York Times article “What Should a Billionaire Give – and What Should You?” moral philosopher, Peter Singer, argues why everyone, especially wealthy individuals, are morally obligated to help tackle the issue of “global poverty” (Singer 266). Singer begins the article by naming two philanthropist billionaires, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet after discovering that many people living in areas that lack access to basic health and public services suffer from high death rates. He emphasizes this by asking provocative questions about the value of human life (Singer 27).

There are countless amounts of videos on the internet and youtube showing greedy people can be and how people’s life can be taken for granted because what situation they are. They’re even videos of kids asking their obvious wealthy parents to give a man in need 10 dollars or even a 5 dollar bill ,but can’t even do that just gives them pocket change. People rather see people fail and be at their lowest rather than to help someone in need. There are also other videos of people who have nothing and will split or offer another fellow in need food or money and in my opinion that person is wealthy at

In summary, when maximizing self-determination as a professional helper, I would ensure those who receive my services, are provided with all the tools need to succeed. By keeping all clients and their information confidential and allowing due process, my self-determination can be maximized to better help people.

During my time living and traveling abroad, I have experienced the most severe examples of wealth inequality, from the one room tin shacks that I visited in the townships of South Africa to the communal huts that housed multiple families in Ethiopia. Witnessing these circumstances, I could never wrap my head around the immense fortune that I had been born into. Even when I was young, I knew that it was my responsibility to do everything I could to help those who had not been born into conditions as favorable as mine. As a teenager, I brought these experiences back with me to the United States and was disappointed to see the most powerful nation in the world was facing the same problems as their poorer counterparts. I decided that if there was anyway to make a change, it would have to start

The concept of being self interested is demeanored as selfish according to many minds, but you have to look at it in a deeper sense. Being self interested has its capability of being something evil, however, I believe the concept of being self interested is designed to better a human naturally, rather than feed one's ego for themselves. Obviously, the impact our culture has on us, can greatly deceive what the purpose for self interest is and plant a twist on it, causing it to turn into a negative and conceited concept. If one was to tell me straight up that they are self interested in themselves, my first thought would be they are overly confident which is perceived as a bad thing often in our world, but then again it's a confusing culture

Bill and Melinda Gates have founded a foundation that provides help for poverty and places that don’t have many education or homes. They both contribute to negating poverty and increase schools and higher education in places that need it the most. They have in total given away 41 Billion USD in just only from 2000 to 2016. They are now spending and giving away 3 to 4 Billion USD every year to combat diseases, reduce poverty, and help increase better education. Every year Bill and Melinda Gates answer 10 “tough questions”. One of the questions they had responded with “The headlines are filled with awful news” “Every day brings a different story of political division, violence, or natural disaster. Despite the headlines, we see a world that’s

Man who has lots of money often are not the ones who help ones in need. People who help others are often ones who have been in their shoes and are sympathetic. Most man who are rich only associate with their close acquaintances who are also rich. Why would they help others when they could continue helping themselves and their own families? In addition, they have the mindset that they worked hard for what they want so why would they help ones who have not. Often homeless people have gone through something traumatic and are hopeless. To them, the rich have worked so hard they couldn't possibly help others. Men are greedy and do not often help others.

But, he does very little to propose an alternative. In the article the only solution that he talks about is that we pursue “humanism,” though he fails to define the term or provide any examples of humanism in action. Also, I disagree with him, that the problems that rich are trying to solve are the problems that have been created by them. It is hard to argue that, Bill Gates had contributed to the malaria in the kids, that he is trying to save them from. Why question the motivation of the donors, who are working to help change the reality? In short, I believe that the solution is not less philanthropy, but to perform a more effective