[DOWNLOAD] "Poverty, Facts, And Political Philosophies: Response to "More Than Charity" (Debate: Global Proverty Relief)" by Ethics & International Affairs " Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Poverty, Facts, And Political Philosophies: Response to "More Than Charity" (Debate: Global Proverty Relief)
- Author : Ethics & International Affairs
- Release Date : January 01, 2002
- Genre: Politics & Current Events,Books,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 257 KB
Description
Andrew Kuper begins his critique of my views on poverty by accepting the crux of my moral argument: The interests of all persons ought to count equally, and geographic location and citizenship make no intrinsic difference to the rights and obligations of individuals. Kuper also sets out some key facts about global poverty, for example, that 30,000 children die every day from preventable illness and starvation, while most people in developed nations have plenty of disposable income that they spend on luxuries and items that satisfy mere wants, not basic needs. Yet after summarizing an essay I wrote for the New York Times Magazine in which I argued that the average American family should donate a large portion of their income to organizations like UNICEF and Oxfam, Kuper writes: "But if Singer's exhortations make you want to act immediately in the ways he recommends, you should not do so." Why not? Because the approach I advocate "would seriously harm the poor." These are strong words. It is startling to be told that a substantial transfer of resources from comfortably-off American families to UNICEF or Oxfam would harm the poor. What about those 30,000 children dying from preventable illness and starvation? In its 2001 fund-raising material, the U.S. Committee for UNICEF says that a donation of $17 will provide immunization "to protect a child for life against the six leading child-killing and maiming diseases: measles, polio, diphtheria, whooping cough, tetanus, and tuberculosis" while a donation of $25 will provide "over 400 packets of oral rehydration salts to help save the lives of children suffering from diarrheal dehydration." Perhaps these figures do not include administrative costs, or the costs of delivery, but even so, wouldn't more resources for immunization and oral rehydration salts benefit the poor, rather than harm them? What about the projects Oxfam funds, like providing equipment and expertise so that Ethiopian villagers can dig wells to get safe drinking water near their village? Since getting water in Ethiopia is women's work, this saves village women up to four hours a day. How can Kuper show that such projects "seriously harm the poor"?