"Dark and difficult times lie ahead. Soon we must all face the choice between what is right what is easy. But remember this, you have friends here. You're not alone." -Dumbledore, "The Goblet of Fire".
I love this quote because I can relate to it on so many levels. Daunting tasks such as school, sports, in my case tennis, and extracurricular activities are easy to neglect. After taking a test, the easiest thing to do is to take a night off, or to watch T.V. for a couple of hours before starting the next in what seems to be a perpetual workload of homework. The notion of doing what's right hardly has to be related to being a hero such as Harry, ridding the world of evil. In my case, doing the right thing would be taking care of my obligations with responsibility, and being able to resist neglecting my homework during that hour break, or forcing myself to not goon AIM that one night before that big math test. It's hard to do, but I remind myself that at the end of the day, ultimately, I'll be that much better off opposed to if I neglected studying. The same holds true for coming home, most days around 6:45 or 7:00, after tennis practice or a match, and having to dive right into a seemingly insurmountable pile of homework, and on top of that, expected to get the same grades as everybody else with less obligations are getting.
Even heroes such as Harry and Dumbledore face adversity. In fact, their actions in face of adversity are what define them as the heroes we know them as. Life is the same way: if there were no such thing as challenges, and no such thing as tests, we might've lived in a boring world of mediocrity. After hearing this quote, I'd like to think that I'll from now on welcome adversity with a smile.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Post 6: "I Believe" Response
The three, “I Believe” essays which I listened to were: : “Be Cool,” by Christian Mc.Bride, “Untold Stories of Kindness,” by Ernesto Haibi, and “We’re all Different in Our Own Ways,” by Joshua Yuchasz.
“Be Cool,” was about how stressed out people are now days and how Christian thinks people need to cool down more. “Untold Stories of Kindness,” was written by an American soldier who had to fight in Iraq. This story was the most moving for me, because Haibi talked about how Iraqi citizens were willing to help out in fights when there were no police, Iraqi military, and in short, no authority around to help, when over 100 people died from car bombs. Haibi talked about how he thought people shouldn’t only work together when there is an imminent danger, which is what he experienced in Iraq. “We’re all Different in Our Own Ways,” was about how a Godzilla obsession Yuchasz has had since 3rd grade has made him ostracized every year. These three essays were on topics which had near to no similarities. The only thing I could think of was that they all had to do with treating others with more decency.
I thought of, “The Singer Solution To World Poverty,” when I heard “Untold Stories of Kindness.” This was because “TSSTWP” mentions how it is an obligation to help others and when you don’t, it’s more like just killing that person. Since “Untold Stories of Kindness,” mentioned how everybody, regardless of beliefs or religion started working together to save lives of others, that was when the imminent need for action to be taken set in. It supported Singer’s idea of how most people will only say that action needs to be taken when they are there, watching that kid of the train tracks get run over, and not when hundreds of thousands, if not hundreds of millions of children die everyday from avoidable, and somewhat affordable costs.
There were no real contradictions I could think of between any of the essays and any of the other written pieces we have discussed in English this semester. It was particularly hard to even find a similarity.
“Be Cool,” was about how stressed out people are now days and how Christian thinks people need to cool down more. “Untold Stories of Kindness,” was written by an American soldier who had to fight in Iraq. This story was the most moving for me, because Haibi talked about how Iraqi citizens were willing to help out in fights when there were no police, Iraqi military, and in short, no authority around to help, when over 100 people died from car bombs. Haibi talked about how he thought people shouldn’t only work together when there is an imminent danger, which is what he experienced in Iraq. “We’re all Different in Our Own Ways,” was about how a Godzilla obsession Yuchasz has had since 3rd grade has made him ostracized every year. These three essays were on topics which had near to no similarities. The only thing I could think of was that they all had to do with treating others with more decency.
I thought of, “The Singer Solution To World Poverty,” when I heard “Untold Stories of Kindness.” This was because “TSSTWP” mentions how it is an obligation to help others and when you don’t, it’s more like just killing that person. Since “Untold Stories of Kindness,” mentioned how everybody, regardless of beliefs or religion started working together to save lives of others, that was when the imminent need for action to be taken set in. It supported Singer’s idea of how most people will only say that action needs to be taken when they are there, watching that kid of the train tracks get run over, and not when hundreds of thousands, if not hundreds of millions of children die everyday from avoidable, and somewhat affordable costs.
There were no real contradictions I could think of between any of the essays and any of the other written pieces we have discussed in English this semester. It was particularly hard to even find a similarity.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Post 5: Ponderings
With a combination from Death Note, my favorite manga and anime series at the moment, and my dream in life (though however impossible it may be, it is still my dream and goal!), I came up with a hypothetical situation where I would be in the control of many lives. This situation pertains to many recurring topics which we've had in English this first cycle.
I want to major in either chemistry or chemical engineering. Chemical engineering, from my understanding of it, can be used to create enzymes and that kind of thing, which has been used to control certain types of cancer with a single pill a day. The enzyme holds the cancer cell in place so that it is impossible for the cell to perform mitosis, which controls both the cell and the spread of the cell throughout the body (Note: this may be slightly off, I'm just reciting what I remember from a video in Biology last year).
So, my goal and dream is to create different enzymes to control different types of cancer. (Yes, now you probably understand when I previously mentioned that my goals and dreams were somewhat, if not completely unobtainable).
The reason why this relates to what we've been discussing in english, is because aside from possibly winning awards and grants offering somewhat substantial amounts of money, you would have a patent on the pills for 10-15 years, and would be able to extort it, by selling the pills for as high as you want, since you have a monopoly on the product and since anybody who had that certain type of cancer would pretty much be willing to pay any price to save their life. There are many poor people out there who have cancer. Jacking up the prices for those who don't have health insurance (which evidently is a major percentage of American and World citizens), would have to pay hundreds if not thousands of dollars for even a single bottle. This deals with the issue of if it is an obligation to help others who are in need: according to "The Singer Solution to World Poverty," you'd essentially be killing whoever could not pay for the drug you made, since you'd be denying people you'd fully be aware that were in need of the drug the drug, and eventually, their lives.
If you kept the price of the drug up, then you would make hundreds of millions of dollars, but would be killing hundreds of thousands of people. Now, being greedy, I would propose something like exploiting the drug, and then using all that money made from the drug and donating it to charities worldwide. However, most benefactors (in my opinion) donate to make themselves feel good: they donate to either get their name on a building or have conditions in which they themselves are recognized for that good deed. If the drug were exploited, and if much of the money WAS donated to charities, that would still not deny the fact that you'd be killing hundreds of thousands of people every year. So, what if you adjusted the price based on a person's need (that is, if you somehow got through thousands of applications for it)? You'd still make money on those with health insurance and rich people who could pay for the whole drug themselves. However, this would induce the sense of prejudicism against minorities and against rich people. It would also be naive and arrogant to think that I would be able to pass rightous judgement concerning people's lives.
I guess all that I've discovered from this debate with myself is that equality is impossible and that you cannot satify everybody. Would you be a rich killer, or a poor hero? I guess that'd be something to ponder if (and that's one of the biggest "if"s in the world) that day miraculously comes.
I want to major in either chemistry or chemical engineering. Chemical engineering, from my understanding of it, can be used to create enzymes and that kind of thing, which has been used to control certain types of cancer with a single pill a day. The enzyme holds the cancer cell in place so that it is impossible for the cell to perform mitosis, which controls both the cell and the spread of the cell throughout the body (Note: this may be slightly off, I'm just reciting what I remember from a video in Biology last year).
So, my goal and dream is to create different enzymes to control different types of cancer. (Yes, now you probably understand when I previously mentioned that my goals and dreams were somewhat, if not completely unobtainable).
The reason why this relates to what we've been discussing in english, is because aside from possibly winning awards and grants offering somewhat substantial amounts of money, you would have a patent on the pills for 10-15 years, and would be able to extort it, by selling the pills for as high as you want, since you have a monopoly on the product and since anybody who had that certain type of cancer would pretty much be willing to pay any price to save their life. There are many poor people out there who have cancer. Jacking up the prices for those who don't have health insurance (which evidently is a major percentage of American and World citizens), would have to pay hundreds if not thousands of dollars for even a single bottle. This deals with the issue of if it is an obligation to help others who are in need: according to "The Singer Solution to World Poverty," you'd essentially be killing whoever could not pay for the drug you made, since you'd be denying people you'd fully be aware that were in need of the drug the drug, and eventually, their lives.
If you kept the price of the drug up, then you would make hundreds of millions of dollars, but would be killing hundreds of thousands of people. Now, being greedy, I would propose something like exploiting the drug, and then using all that money made from the drug and donating it to charities worldwide. However, most benefactors (in my opinion) donate to make themselves feel good: they donate to either get their name on a building or have conditions in which they themselves are recognized for that good deed. If the drug were exploited, and if much of the money WAS donated to charities, that would still not deny the fact that you'd be killing hundreds of thousands of people every year. So, what if you adjusted the price based on a person's need (that is, if you somehow got through thousands of applications for it)? You'd still make money on those with health insurance and rich people who could pay for the whole drug themselves. However, this would induce the sense of prejudicism against minorities and against rich people. It would also be naive and arrogant to think that I would be able to pass rightous judgement concerning people's lives.
I guess all that I've discovered from this debate with myself is that equality is impossible and that you cannot satify everybody. Would you be a rich killer, or a poor hero? I guess that'd be something to ponder if (and that's one of the biggest "if"s in the world) that day miraculously comes.
Post 4: Contradictions Without Conclusions
In class we recently read "The Singer Solution to World Poverty," and we were partway through reading "The Gift," speaking about Kravinsky's unconditional generosity to people he barely knew. A similarity between the two essays was that they both propose that if you knowingly do not donate, and even if you do donate, it was not as much as you were able to donate, that you are killing someone. In other words, both essays are conveying that giving back to the community and to those in need is an obligation.
There are times in life where I feel very insignificant, almost as if I do not have a voice in this seemingly boundless world. A speaker came to chapel today. Unfortunately I didn't remember her name, but her story was very inspirational. She talked to our grade about how lucky we truly are to be in a learning environment with vast resources; that is, even books which we everyday take for granted cannot be adequetely supplied to public schools. Even though she is just one of over 6 billion voices in the world, her difference to the world, to however little people it affected, was significant. This lead to a question that I pondered: what is more important: saving a child's life, where an education is not secured, or provide children with a 2nd grade reading level when they should be at a 6th grade reading level with an adequete education? Which is more important to address?: one is local and national while the other problem is primarily international. Is it an obligation to donate money to international countries when the problems nationally are obvliously more related to us?
"Do you think about your dream when you are falling down? Do you think about your dream when nobody believes you?" -Middle of Nowhere by Ellegarden. Growing up is scary. I do not want to imagine a world where my dreams cannot come true, even if I try as hard as I can. In this stage of my life, my primary goal is to get into one of the top colleges in the country. In fact, I'd imagine that that'd be most people's goals who are my age, since we all are going to a prep school. Grades came out today, and almost needlessly to say, they were a letdown, not that that should be a suprise after two semesters of prior grades which negate my dream of getting into a top college. Do I think about my dreams when I am falling down? Sure, and most of the time, it makes me try harder. Usually, it gives me a sense of vindiction: almost as though I have something to prove. But after two semesters of disappointment, with more and more added to boot, the dream becomes less and less plausible, and the picture becomes grayer every time.
How many regrets will I live with in two years, after the acceptances and rejections get slammed in my face, through all my other obligations? Will I live in a world of what ifs?
There are times in life where I feel very insignificant, almost as if I do not have a voice in this seemingly boundless world. A speaker came to chapel today. Unfortunately I didn't remember her name, but her story was very inspirational. She talked to our grade about how lucky we truly are to be in a learning environment with vast resources; that is, even books which we everyday take for granted cannot be adequetely supplied to public schools. Even though she is just one of over 6 billion voices in the world, her difference to the world, to however little people it affected, was significant. This lead to a question that I pondered: what is more important: saving a child's life, where an education is not secured, or provide children with a 2nd grade reading level when they should be at a 6th grade reading level with an adequete education? Which is more important to address?: one is local and national while the other problem is primarily international. Is it an obligation to donate money to international countries when the problems nationally are obvliously more related to us?
"Do you think about your dream when you are falling down? Do you think about your dream when nobody believes you?" -Middle of Nowhere by Ellegarden. Growing up is scary. I do not want to imagine a world where my dreams cannot come true, even if I try as hard as I can. In this stage of my life, my primary goal is to get into one of the top colleges in the country. In fact, I'd imagine that that'd be most people's goals who are my age, since we all are going to a prep school. Grades came out today, and almost needlessly to say, they were a letdown, not that that should be a suprise after two semesters of prior grades which negate my dream of getting into a top college. Do I think about my dreams when I am falling down? Sure, and most of the time, it makes me try harder. Usually, it gives me a sense of vindiction: almost as though I have something to prove. But after two semesters of disappointment, with more and more added to boot, the dream becomes less and less plausible, and the picture becomes grayer every time.
How many regrets will I live with in two years, after the acceptances and rejections get slammed in my face, through all my other obligations? Will I live in a world of what ifs?
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Post 3: Questions for "TSSTWP", and Video Response: "4 Generations"
Today in class we discussed “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” this time not trying to fit together slivers of the entire essay, but rather establishing what kind of thoughts Singer was trying to convey to the reader, and how he went about that. After having a class discussion, we were instructed to jot down a couple questions which we thought were raised in this essay. The questions which I thought the essay was imploring were: 1. Is it okay to remain silent while others are suffering? 2. Is it an obligation to help others? 3. Is allowing something to occur the same as doing it yourself?
Our homework was to watch the video, “4 Generations- The Water Buffalo Movie.” The similarities between this movie and “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” were very apparent: The cost of a water buffalo is $250, and it helps farmers to unsettle the dirt in their farms, making the soil more fertile. Additionally it can serve as a family’s food supply for a full half year. As mentioned in “TSSTWP,” the cost of saving a child’s life and sustaining them for 4 years is $200. Both donations help support children and adults alike, when they themselves cannot make a living. Both donations give hope to those who forgot the humanity of those who are much more fortunate than they are. And, both donations remind us of how fortunate we ourselves are, to remember those necessities we take for granted that much of the rest of the world doesn’t have.
Integrating the questions I believe that Singer tried to explore can be related to “4 Generations.” “Is it an obligations to help others?” Certainly if I or the director of this movie, Thompson, were oblivious to all of this, we would not be able to take action to address the poverty problem in China, and how a mere gift of a water buffalo, costing just shy of a 5th generation iPod could support a family in so many ways. More specifically, we would not even know what the problem was. If we are oblivious to what we could do, and then say, a Chinese family died just because they did not have a water buffalo to supply food for those 6 months, are we still at fault?
Let me pose a hypothetical situation: Suppose I possessed only $250 dollars to donate. Would I donate $200 to help a sickly 2 year old grow to a healthy 6 year old, or would I buy a water buffalo for a poor farming family in rural China? Since Singer claimed that we are all in the situation of choosing between the life of an innocent child, and our own luxury, or in the hypothetical situation I posed, since we are all in the situation of having to choose between an innocent child’s life, or an innocent, poor family in rural China, choosing one over the other would detrimentally affect the other. That is, if I chose to donate my money to the Chinese family, the child I did not choose to donate to would probably die, and if I chose to donate the money to the child, the Chinese family would keep having to fend for themselves; even when family members passed away or when family members committed suicide. In other words, no matter what I did, I’d still have to kill someone, since Singer states that allowing something to happen is the same as doing it. “(Bob) must have thought how extraordinarily unlucky he was to be placed in a situation in which he must choose between the life of an innocent child and the sacrifice of most of his savings. But he was not unlucky at all. We are all in that situation.” (Singer, 4). From what Singer said, allowing a child to die because you weren’t willing to make that $200 donation, is the same as letting that child get run over by a train: only you would benefit. Therefore, is Singer not killing someone as well, if he could not donate to both the child AND the Chinese family?
Our homework was to watch the video, “4 Generations- The Water Buffalo Movie.” The similarities between this movie and “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” were very apparent: The cost of a water buffalo is $250, and it helps farmers to unsettle the dirt in their farms, making the soil more fertile. Additionally it can serve as a family’s food supply for a full half year. As mentioned in “TSSTWP,” the cost of saving a child’s life and sustaining them for 4 years is $200. Both donations help support children and adults alike, when they themselves cannot make a living. Both donations give hope to those who forgot the humanity of those who are much more fortunate than they are. And, both donations remind us of how fortunate we ourselves are, to remember those necessities we take for granted that much of the rest of the world doesn’t have.
Integrating the questions I believe that Singer tried to explore can be related to “4 Generations.” “Is it an obligations to help others?” Certainly if I or the director of this movie, Thompson, were oblivious to all of this, we would not be able to take action to address the poverty problem in China, and how a mere gift of a water buffalo, costing just shy of a 5th generation iPod could support a family in so many ways. More specifically, we would not even know what the problem was. If we are oblivious to what we could do, and then say, a Chinese family died just because they did not have a water buffalo to supply food for those 6 months, are we still at fault?
Let me pose a hypothetical situation: Suppose I possessed only $250 dollars to donate. Would I donate $200 to help a sickly 2 year old grow to a healthy 6 year old, or would I buy a water buffalo for a poor farming family in rural China? Since Singer claimed that we are all in the situation of choosing between the life of an innocent child, and our own luxury, or in the hypothetical situation I posed, since we are all in the situation of having to choose between an innocent child’s life, or an innocent, poor family in rural China, choosing one over the other would detrimentally affect the other. That is, if I chose to donate my money to the Chinese family, the child I did not choose to donate to would probably die, and if I chose to donate the money to the child, the Chinese family would keep having to fend for themselves; even when family members passed away or when family members committed suicide. In other words, no matter what I did, I’d still have to kill someone, since Singer states that allowing something to happen is the same as doing it. “(Bob) must have thought how extraordinarily unlucky he was to be placed in a situation in which he must choose between the life of an innocent child and the sacrifice of most of his savings. But he was not unlucky at all. We are all in that situation.” (Singer, 4). From what Singer said, allowing a child to die because you weren’t willing to make that $200 donation, is the same as letting that child get run over by a train: only you would benefit. Therefore, is Singer not killing someone as well, if he could not donate to both the child AND the Chinese family?
Monday, January 22, 2007
"The Singer Solution to World Poverty" Response
What kind of world is this? How should I live in it? Prior to reading “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” I might have replied that perhaps I feel that I am a good person for donating that $10 at alternative gift giving as opposed to buying a material present for a friend, who would almost undoubtedly forget about it a year, if not a month, or even days after they received it from me. I mean, it’s probably more than most people do right? It’s a smart, right? Little did I know how drastically this article would change my views on giving.
The article starts off with a short antidote about a retired schoolteacher, Dora, and how she had the choice between benefiting herself, having an opportunity to gain $1000 in delivering a helpless boy to be slaughtered, or protecting the boy yet not gaining anything from it; perhaps at most, a sense of dignity and morality. Singer was quick to point out how many of us, had Dora chose to sacrifice the young boy for personal gain would have been harsh critics of her, accusing her to be inhumane and perhaps even calling her a monster. However, if we looked at ourselves in that same situation; that is, if we looked in the mirror and if we were actually in that situation, not judging someone else’s actions, as that is very easy to do, but rather if we were offered a thousand dollars, in exchange for being ignorant to a child’s life, would we really not take that cash? It is very likely that most people would still not take the money, as they would still look at it as being immoral. Yet, if I may pose an even different situation, what if the amount of money being offered to you is even more substantial? What if you were offered $10,000? $100,000? Could any of us honestly say that we wouldn’t think about sacrificing the boy, who probably does not have a future, at least a future that would be affable? This relates to the hypothetical story which Peter Unger presented in his book, “Living High and Letting Die”:
Bob had most of his finances invested in a Bugatti, an uninsured, very pricey car. He parked on a train track, which was diverted so that the train would be forced to go in the opposite direction. When he saw a small child playing on the track, on the track the train was diverted into, he could’ve switched the track by pressing a switch so that his Bugatti would get totaled, but the child would be saved. In this situation, the author presented Bob deciding that his car was worth more than the child’s life, and let the child die. The first time I read that short story through, I thought to myself: What a conceited guy. Who does he think he is? Had he been that child playing on the tracks, oblivious to the approaching train, wouldn’t he have been eternally grateful to that man who saved his life? Unfortunately, the author offered me a mirror to look at myself in. Unger states that an amount of money we all take for granted, though possibly substantial if you were looking to buy an iPod or another small item which was not a necessity; that a mere $200, could support a child for 4 years, making that child into a healthy individual. “By his calculation, $200 in donations would help a sickly 2-year-old transform into a healthy 6-year-old…” (2, Singer).
I thought to myself: Wow, that’s really great and all, but I personally don’t have $200 to invest in something like saving a child’s life, no matter how priceless that may be. Singer, seemingly unwilling to accept my stubbornness on this matter, continued to delve deeper into Bob’s situation. Singer posed a slightly different situation, asking that if Bob had something substantial to lose himself with the car; say his toe, foot, or even his entire leg, would his choice to not divert the train in order to save his car, (and now his toe, foot, or leg) become more justified? Would most people not criticize Bob had this been the situation?
Singer proceeded the point out that most people would argue that they shouldn’t do more of their share if they donate, since nobody else does. I know personally that I might regret a decision of donating money to charity and then being teased for not having a big TV, or not having a better computer. I myself still stood firmly on my position: I probably did more than most people last year, putting aside $10 for charity (even though it had a partially ulterior motive to it).
Singer was relentless: he pointed out how much regret we should feel spending money on luxuries that could be spent on saving a child’s life. How we should feel fulfilled that we helped another person’s life. The lines which truly made me stop and think were in the last paragraph. Singer pointed out how since we, the reader, have now been well educated about how much a relatively small amount of money can do, to the point that neglecting it would be no better than watching the child get run over by the train. It became obvious that helping a child by donating a mere $200 was not much of a choice, but rather, an obligation we all have. Singer turned me, an innocent reader, into the monster.
“When Bob first grasped the dilemma that faced him as he stood by that railway switch, he must have thought how extraordinarily unlucky he was to be placed in a situation in which he must choose between the life of an innocent child and the sacrifice of most of his savings. But he was not unlucky at all. We are all in that situation.” (4, Singer).
To offer an opinion about what this world is like and how we should live in it: the world is a place where even the smallest effort can make a huge difference. We may think that our actions go unseen, but even if they are, it shouldn’t matter. Bob may have thought that sacrificing his expensive car to save someone’s life; someone who wouldn’t even know their life was saved by Bob, would be not much compensation for such a big sacrifice on his part. However, in my opinion, the true spirit of giving is when the donor remains unknown to whoever receives their donation; whether it is their life or $200, so that the donor doesn’t give to make themselves feel better and be recognized as a charitable person. But rather, giving without wanting recognition so that the donation was in the spirit of helping the person, and not just to make themselves feel good.
The article starts off with a short antidote about a retired schoolteacher, Dora, and how she had the choice between benefiting herself, having an opportunity to gain $1000 in delivering a helpless boy to be slaughtered, or protecting the boy yet not gaining anything from it; perhaps at most, a sense of dignity and morality. Singer was quick to point out how many of us, had Dora chose to sacrifice the young boy for personal gain would have been harsh critics of her, accusing her to be inhumane and perhaps even calling her a monster. However, if we looked at ourselves in that same situation; that is, if we looked in the mirror and if we were actually in that situation, not judging someone else’s actions, as that is very easy to do, but rather if we were offered a thousand dollars, in exchange for being ignorant to a child’s life, would we really not take that cash? It is very likely that most people would still not take the money, as they would still look at it as being immoral. Yet, if I may pose an even different situation, what if the amount of money being offered to you is even more substantial? What if you were offered $10,000? $100,000? Could any of us honestly say that we wouldn’t think about sacrificing the boy, who probably does not have a future, at least a future that would be affable? This relates to the hypothetical story which Peter Unger presented in his book, “Living High and Letting Die”:
Bob had most of his finances invested in a Bugatti, an uninsured, very pricey car. He parked on a train track, which was diverted so that the train would be forced to go in the opposite direction. When he saw a small child playing on the track, on the track the train was diverted into, he could’ve switched the track by pressing a switch so that his Bugatti would get totaled, but the child would be saved. In this situation, the author presented Bob deciding that his car was worth more than the child’s life, and let the child die. The first time I read that short story through, I thought to myself: What a conceited guy. Who does he think he is? Had he been that child playing on the tracks, oblivious to the approaching train, wouldn’t he have been eternally grateful to that man who saved his life? Unfortunately, the author offered me a mirror to look at myself in. Unger states that an amount of money we all take for granted, though possibly substantial if you were looking to buy an iPod or another small item which was not a necessity; that a mere $200, could support a child for 4 years, making that child into a healthy individual. “By his calculation, $200 in donations would help a sickly 2-year-old transform into a healthy 6-year-old…” (2, Singer).
I thought to myself: Wow, that’s really great and all, but I personally don’t have $200 to invest in something like saving a child’s life, no matter how priceless that may be. Singer, seemingly unwilling to accept my stubbornness on this matter, continued to delve deeper into Bob’s situation. Singer posed a slightly different situation, asking that if Bob had something substantial to lose himself with the car; say his toe, foot, or even his entire leg, would his choice to not divert the train in order to save his car, (and now his toe, foot, or leg) become more justified? Would most people not criticize Bob had this been the situation?
Singer proceeded the point out that most people would argue that they shouldn’t do more of their share if they donate, since nobody else does. I know personally that I might regret a decision of donating money to charity and then being teased for not having a big TV, or not having a better computer. I myself still stood firmly on my position: I probably did more than most people last year, putting aside $10 for charity (even though it had a partially ulterior motive to it).
Singer was relentless: he pointed out how much regret we should feel spending money on luxuries that could be spent on saving a child’s life. How we should feel fulfilled that we helped another person’s life. The lines which truly made me stop and think were in the last paragraph. Singer pointed out how since we, the reader, have now been well educated about how much a relatively small amount of money can do, to the point that neglecting it would be no better than watching the child get run over by the train. It became obvious that helping a child by donating a mere $200 was not much of a choice, but rather, an obligation we all have. Singer turned me, an innocent reader, into the monster.
“When Bob first grasped the dilemma that faced him as he stood by that railway switch, he must have thought how extraordinarily unlucky he was to be placed in a situation in which he must choose between the life of an innocent child and the sacrifice of most of his savings. But he was not unlucky at all. We are all in that situation.” (4, Singer).
To offer an opinion about what this world is like and how we should live in it: the world is a place where even the smallest effort can make a huge difference. We may think that our actions go unseen, but even if they are, it shouldn’t matter. Bob may have thought that sacrificing his expensive car to save someone’s life; someone who wouldn’t even know their life was saved by Bob, would be not much compensation for such a big sacrifice on his part. However, in my opinion, the true spirit of giving is when the donor remains unknown to whoever receives their donation; whether it is their life or $200, so that the donor doesn’t give to make themselves feel better and be recognized as a charitable person. But rather, giving without wanting recognition so that the donation was in the spirit of helping the person, and not just to make themselves feel good.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Explanations
Wow my first post... I'm kind of nervous. Well... not really I just thought that'd make it more dramatic. Ah! Of course! Where ARE my manners... my name is Kevin Caulfield and I'm a sophomore at Punahou. So why tknogk? tknogk was a name I came up with playing a game (I think it was lumines for the PSP), where I only had 6 characters to fill in a sn (screen name), in the highly unlikely case that I somehow made it onto the high scores list. If you haven't figured it out yet, I'm really weird and I like gadgets, in particular, mp3 players, cell phones, and computers. You could probably ask me anything about mp3 players and I'd be able to answer it... yeah... I'm THAT weird... So I figured my sn should be a reflection of who I am, so tknogk= technology geek.
The other thing I really love to do is read manga/ watch anime. Right now, I'm really into Death Note (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_note- but be careful! There's tons of spoilers in that!!!), and what the series is about is pretty much self explanatory: there's a notebook called a Death Note which can be used to kill other people by whatever means you desire. It may sound very draconian, but the owner used it to kill criminals, which he thought was justice. But what is justice? L, the best detective in the world, wants to catch Light, the main character, in the name of justice. Ah... well I went a little overboard explaining that, but it's such a great series that I want everyone to get into it as I am right now. I actually somewhat surprisingly buy it (unlike most, if not all, the audio and video content I have on my computer), whereas everyone else reads it at the bookstore or downloads it.
http://www.stoptazmo.com/death_note/
Wow where did that link come from? I CERTAINLY didn't put it there.....*looks around nervously*. The only reason why I'm using this now is because the next issue comes out in March... and it's just THAT good haha. Also, I've always been a huge fan of One Piece. I actually have 291 episodes of it downloaded o_0... and probably about another 300 episodes of other series. I... am just getting weirder by the moment aren't I...
Hmm... what else...My favorite subject is chemistry, because it's fun to make things catch on fire. Today I actually got to make flaming snowballs, which is make from 1 part Saturated Calcium Acetate and 9 parts denatured alcohol. It's really fun to play around with, but obviously dangerous if your hands aren't wet. I'll try taking a picture of that if I do it again :)
Well... I'm getting really bored about talking about myself actually. I'll post more things later I guess. If anyone wants to talk, my sn for aim is: kc10splayer
I don't really have a story behind that one other than I play tennis, but hey... I was in 8th grade when I made it, so I don't have to have a logical rationale for it :)
The other thing I really love to do is read manga/ watch anime. Right now, I'm really into Death Note (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_note- but be careful! There's tons of spoilers in that!!!), and what the series is about is pretty much self explanatory: there's a notebook called a Death Note which can be used to kill other people by whatever means you desire. It may sound very draconian, but the owner used it to kill criminals, which he thought was justice. But what is justice? L, the best detective in the world, wants to catch Light, the main character, in the name of justice. Ah... well I went a little overboard explaining that, but it's such a great series that I want everyone to get into it as I am right now. I actually somewhat surprisingly buy it (unlike most, if not all, the audio and video content I have on my computer), whereas everyone else reads it at the bookstore or downloads it.
http://www.stoptazmo.com/death_note/
Wow where did that link come from? I CERTAINLY didn't put it there.....*looks around nervously*. The only reason why I'm using this now is because the next issue comes out in March... and it's just THAT good haha. Also, I've always been a huge fan of One Piece. I actually have 291 episodes of it downloaded o_0... and probably about another 300 episodes of other series. I... am just getting weirder by the moment aren't I...
Hmm... what else...My favorite subject is chemistry, because it's fun to make things catch on fire. Today I actually got to make flaming snowballs, which is make from 1 part Saturated Calcium Acetate and 9 parts denatured alcohol. It's really fun to play around with, but obviously dangerous if your hands aren't wet. I'll try taking a picture of that if I do it again :)
Well... I'm getting really bored about talking about myself actually. I'll post more things later I guess. If anyone wants to talk, my sn for aim is: kc10splayer
I don't really have a story behind that one other than I play tennis, but hey... I was in 8th grade when I made it, so I don't have to have a logical rationale for it :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
