Reader Response #2

Peter Singer, an Australian-born philosopher and bioethicist, states that average Americans should engage in charity more rather than spending on luxury goods in his article, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”.

In the article, Singer provides a comparison between a Brazilian film, in which a retired schoolteacher, Dora, who sold a homeless child to organ peddlers unintentionally then risks her life saving the kid, and a hypothetical example written in Peter Unger’s, a New York University philosopher, Living High and Letting Die about Bob, who rather saves his Bugatti of high value than a faraway child that is about to get run over by a train. The comparison between the two demonstrates a logical presentation in how people perceive charity and helping others.

The logical part of the comparison is when Singer illustrates that Dora felt a sense of guilt after learning about the situation. After all, she had some physical contacts with the kid and had personally transferred the child from her hand to the organ peddlers’ hands. Thus, she felt a need to amend her wrong doings by saving the kid while risking the consequences. Whereas, Bob, who did not have any sort of physical contacts with the kid standing faraway on the track. Thus, decided to save his Bugatti that he enjoys much more than the kid. Like Singer says, the hypothetical example of Bob serves as a reminder that “we, too, have opportunities to save the lives of children” (372). Also, Singer addresses the fact that to what extend a person needs to sacrifice in order to save a child’s life. All these are factors that, I, personally, believe affects how a person decides on whether or not to participate in charity.

Lastly, Singer brings up the idea of having all average Americans can donate a “fair share” of their hard-earned income to help save lives of homeless children. This idea of Singer, I believe, serves as a downfall to his article. Singer neglects the fact that not all average Americans are living a luxurious life as he describes. Some may have personal issues as well as difficulties to overcome, therefore, does not have the ability to donate their share to the charity. Also, if there is no spending on luxurious items, then what would happen to the economy if everyone stops altogether in buying the newly invented gadgets?

Overall, I believe Singer’s article addresses the issue of how donating a few amount of your money to charity can help save many lives well. Nevertheless, the solution he offers – whatever money you’re spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away (374) – only stimulates another issue to the society.

"The Wrong Lesson: Teaching College Reporters to be Meek" - David Wallis

David Wallis has suggested good examples of restrictions on college journalists to express their thoughts and speech freely in the article “The Wrong Lesson: Teaching College Reporters to be Meek”. According to the article, the main targets that Wallis is pointing his fingers at are the private, religious-based colleges as well as all other colleges that are limiting college journalists in expressing their writings freely. As a journalist and writer himself, Wallis has pointed out the limitations and restrictions that are imposed on college journalists. I believed that these boundaries are set for the students in order to provide the college with an outstanding public reputation. In this case, as Wallis has said, are depriving away the college student journalists’ right to freedom of speech and religion – simply as the 1^st amendment. Throughout the argument, I think Wallis does an effective job in building up his argument with persuasive supporting examples. The examples are given in short summarized form, but they hit on the point his arguing directly. He also states the authority from which he derived his examples from, which easily convinces his audiences that he is sincere and truthful in his arguments. Although Wallis’ article is considered short, he builds up the tension and then is still able to back off with a less harsh solution. With the soften solution suggested by Wallis to the strong arguments, Wallis has effectively leave his audience/reader with an open space to thoroughly think through his proposition instead of pressing them against the wall threatening them to take actions. However, I thought Wallis could be more specific on what lesson he wants the college to actually teach their students. For instance, does he want the college to teach the students to dig up all news that they can get their hands on?, or just simply teach them that they should not subjugate to authority too easily?