Prompt: What do you think of Peter Singer’s arguments? Do you feel obligated to help those in need? Why or why not? If so, what are you going to do about it? If not, how would you support your reasoning to someone who sided with Singer?
I think that Singer has a valid argument. However, I don’t necessarily agree with him on all of his points. I agree that it is important to give. It doesn’t matter if it is time, money, or both. I don’t agree with being ‘effectively altruistic’. Singer says that one should go into a professional that gives a lot of money. Once the money is obtained, the money not needed for living a moderate life should be given away. That sounds like a poor reason to choose a life-long profession. One of the most touchy subjects when it comes to giving, is intent. Singer claims that you should give to make yourself feel good, and that it can be a competition if necessary. A copious amount go people would say that giving for the wrong reasons gets rid of part of the glamour. I disagree. Whatever is given, no matter the motive, helps.
I do feel obligated to help those in need. I hate to see suffering, and really believe that with baby steps, the world can become a better place for everyone… not just the lucky minority that represents the people who we read about talking about the world’s problems. I think that it is important to donate money to organisations; but it is even more important to donate time. Money can be used ineffectively. Time, and aid, cannot. I also think that it is admirable to help other countries, but it is equally admirable (and important) to help out those in need in our own country/ies. I hope to get my degree in International Security Studies, and then help make the world a little safer, and more equal for everyone.