Strong response to Emily Andrews 'Why I don't Spare 'Spare Change''

The essay begins with Henry George referring to his audience as ladies and gentlemen. He then goes on to state that poverty is a crime. A crime not committed by the poor, but rather the poor as victims of the crime. He also does not wholly blame those perpetrating the crime, he also gives a kind of notion that the victim has a hand the situation he or she finds themselves in. He says the poverty is a curse that not only the poor have but is on every level of society even the rich. He says the rich also suffer because it is like the air all the community breathes. They too must breathe it.

In this article, Singer argues that prosperous people should give all money not used on necessities to charity. This bold argument will either persuade or disinterest someone fully. There are many pros and cons of Singer’s argument.

Every time I walk out of a store and see the people who collect donations outside the stores I always ignore them. The reason I ignore them is because I don’t carry spare change. Another reason is that, I don’t want to tell them that I don’t have change because I feel that they might think I’m lying, that I don’t want to give them money. I sometimes do it too, when I see a homeless person in the street. I always give them a dollar or two, when I don’t have spare change I got no other choice but to pass by and ignore them. It feels bad ignoring them but there’s times where you can’t do anything about it. This is an example of bad faith because I’m avoiding these people, but not because I want to,

What are your thoughts on the text so far, based on your perceptions of poverty do you think the author illustrated it accurately? I believe that she did a good job illustrating the ways she was dealing with poverty. She also gave great example on the different jobs and things she had to overcome so she could get a better life.

We all heard countless solutions on how to solve world poverty. In Peter Singer’s article “Rich and Poor”, he discusses how he thinks this problem can be fixed. Singer claims that we all have a responsibility to support people who are in extreme need and are suffering from absolute poverty. Singer believes that poverty could be fixed if people give up their luxuries and give the money that they spent on unnecessary things to those who are destitute. In Singer 's mind, we all have a duty to give until we are no longer able to, or until the problem with the world poverty will be solved. Singer feels that it is necessary for people who are more wealthy to help those who are less fortunate by donating money right away to organizations that help fight poverty. In his opinion, by not helping those in need we are negatively responsible for their suffering and thus failing to live a moral life.

A man can give money to the homeless on the same day as …... . Barbara Lazear Ascher wrote a piece called “On Compassion” stating that through people's own experiences, they learn compassion with the trouble right next to us. An argument that has merit, but only to a certain extent. Experiences of the individual will have them learn compassion on their own, but having the unfortunate in our faces will not guarantee a person to learn compassion. In fact, it may do the opposite and create hostility as all of us are imperfect.

Peter Singer’s central idea focuses around how grim death and suffering from lack of food, shelter and medical care really is. He further argues that if we can prevent something this unfortunate from happening, without sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought to do it. In other words, as privileged citizens, we ought to prevent all of the death and suffering that we can from lack of food, shelter and medical care from happening by giving our money and resources to charity (Chao, 2016, in-class discussion). In the terms of this argument, death and suffering from poverty are preventable with the

To simply give money as “charity” to a man who has none, is to only feed into his follies as a man. Carnegie believes that in an every 1,000 dollars given to charity, 950 dollars of it goes to waste. The rich man who simply hands money away in small sums to others themselves only stalls the growth of character and ambition throughout the Nation.

Singer informs his audience of the plight of children overseas who are dying from hunger and preventable diseases. Singer argues that if everyone donated $200 to overseas aid organizations, it could help save impoverished children. After initially compelling people to want to give $200 for children who are experiencing hunger Singer then starts demanding more money from his audience. Singer states that Americans should forego luxuries so that they can donate generously to overseas aid organizations. Singer provides two examples to emphasize his point.

Hook's essay is a compelling literary piece that explored how the poor are represented. She wrote about how she herself grew up poor and explored how our culture portrays the poor as lazy, worthless, and dishonest. Hook also explained how in television and film the rich are seen as those who are hard-working, honest, and eager to share.

Singer provides the statistical data to strengthen his argument and claims that one third of annual income of the Americans is spent on unnecessities (Singer, “The Singer Solution” 1). In Unger's research, Singer found out that $200 could save one child's life ( Singer, “The Singer Solution” 2). What is $200 for us compared with the children’s lives? It is nothing. The author emphasizes that we spend the same amount of money when we dine out at an expensive restaurant. Instead of going to restaurant, we could do something better with our money and save a child. But there are a lot of suffering children all over the world, who also deserve to live. The author, furthermore, encourages people does not stop at $200 and to donate all excess money from their income: “the formula is simple: whatever money you're spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away” (Singer, “The Singer Solution” 4). He provides direct phone numbers of such organizations as UNICEF, Oxfam America that engaged in helping the needy people, thereby showing us that we have all possibilities and information to alleviate needless suffering (Singer, “The Singer Solution” 2). Thus, Peter invokes readers to give up going to restaurants, as well as to give up buying other luxuries so that one child’s life will be saved. He concludes that if we do not sacrifice our

Peter Singer provides the specific number, $200, to demonstrate how reasonable it is to save a child in poverty. Additionally, he repeats, “to save a child’s life,” which demonstrates exactly what a $200 donation could do for a helpless child. As an example, Singer references a credible philosopher, Peter Unger, and acknowledges that, “by his calculation, $200 in donations would help a sickly 2-year-old transform into a healthy 6-year-old.” Next, he establishes that, “if you were to give up dining out just for one month, you would easily save that amount.” Singer emphasises this to show the reader how simple it is to save $200, and, more importantly, save a child’s life. By repeating this number multiple times, following with, “to save a child’s life,” throughout his essay, Singer implies a reasonable yet urgent tone in order to convince the reader that if they donate, they will save a

According to the critics our charitable giving is often inefficient and they also questions the ethnicity of the money raised by the charitable organisations. They point out that charities may not make best use of their funds. Karl Paul Reinhold Niebuhr, in his book (Moral Man and Immoral Society, 1932) writes that he thought that “a powerful person's donation to charity was a display of his power and an expression of his pity.” Thus, the critics of charity says that, every so-called charity is an encouragement of the very evil it claims to operate against. The accusation is that charity helps the recipient with their problem, but it doesn't do much to deal with the causes of that

Helping people is a noble thing to do especially when it comes to the application of natural justice, where human beings help those who are suffering. There is always a hidden intention in every action that is obscured by the notion of philanthropy. Returned favors expectation might not be the ultimate intention as to why people may perform an act (Michael, 1978). However, it will be illogical to say that these intentions were

Growing up looking at the homeless people in my community, I would often feel bad for them but I would usually remember a saying in my family, which is “they have arms and legs so they could work”. Often time’s people say sayings like this “they have arms and legs so they could work” but they do not realize that this implies us judging. In some situations, people are also trying to avoid the homeless persons because they do not want to give them money. This may be seen as a selfish act but it could also be viewed as an act of self-preservation since people do not know if the less fortunate people are trustworthy. People are not necessarily trying to understand where that homeless person might be coming from, in which, they jump into conclusions so they won’t have the guilt of not donating or helping. This might be showing a lack of empathy because people do not want to have the responsibility to provide for the basic needs of those less fortunate. Empathy is defined as being able to understanding what the other person is feeling. People do not necessarily have to provide with IPod’s or tablets but with only the basic needs, which are food, shelter and clothing. People should have the responsibility to provide for the basic needs of others, although how they provide should be an individual’s choice because helping others allows society to change for the better.