The two essays that we read, “Live Free and Starve” by Chitra Divakaruni and “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” by Peter Skinner, have contrasting views on how to deal with children in need in third world countries. Divakaruni argues that it would be better to leave the children where they are now because they will not be able to survive in the harsh world of the streets of a third world country. Singer, on the other hand, argues that we should give every penny we can to these children in need because it would be incredibly immoral for us to live is luxury while others are in mortal peril. While Divakaruni does make an interesting point, I must agree with Singer because it is wrong for us to squander our money that others desperately need.
I definitely had some reader bias while reading these essays that pulled me toward Singer’s side of the argument. Singer’s side agreed with my beliefs and everything that I had been taught about compassion and sympathy. However, I also believe that without this reader bias I still would have agreed with Singer because his argument was more compelling and more morally sound. Divakaruni’s argument was an undeniably unique and interesting look at a mostly one-sided issue, but it is difficult to imagine following through with the idea that children are better off in their factories and not with their families. Not only Singer’s argument better presented than Divakaruni’s, but also it is more morally sound. It is obvious that the right course of action in the scenario that he presented is to save the child’s life, no matter the cost. Not to do so is completely immoral and, whether you have reader bias or not, should be opposed.
No comments:
Post a Comment