What is the role of the artist when it comes to making the world better?
I would hate to use the word "role" because it implies and obligation and I am not sure that art works well when saddled with obligations. Artists work best when unfettered with societal conventions. However, I do believe that artists of all shapes and sizes do make the world a better place by expanding our personal, societal and world perspectives and visions. French philosopher and social critic, Marcel Proust, once wrote that "the real voyage of self-discovery consists not in seeing new landscapes, but in having new eyes." Artists are the new eyes of the world that allow us to see entirely new landscapes and possibilities. Too many humans behave as a universe of one instead of a world of interconnected people who do best when they meld their collective strengths and perspectives to create new outlooks. Artists remind us to see the world outside of ourselves. This is extremely valuable in a world filled with people trying to confine people's personal and world visions. Artists also remind us to create and creating is a fundamental human need. Too many humans are living passive lives through which they watch the world go by. Artists say, "get up, stand up, create your world!" One needs to be reminded of this message every single day.
The singer solution to world poverty?
Peter Singer opens his essay by describing a situation from a movie, yet it could be argued that seeing movies is, in fact, a luxury that one advocating his position should forgo. To what extent does this interpretation undermine Singer's argument?
The singer solution to world poverty what is Singer's central argument?
His argument is if everyone had a sewing machine, no one would be poor.
Can someone help me on Peter Singers article called Famine, Affluence and Morality.?
a. What is Singer's goal in his article and can you present his arguments in relation to that issue? b. What are three counter arguments to Singer's position that he addresses in this article? Can you indicate Singer's responses to those counter arguments? c.Can you define Singer's concept of marginal utility and identify how it relates to his arguments? d. Compare how the ideas of duty and charity change in Singer's proposed world? e. Afterwards can you give me your personal response to Singer's position? It could be about you supporting him or against him or somewhere in the middle. I know most people have not read his article but would like to see what everyone says. I know that his big goal was to shed light and bring awareness to the way people suffer in the world due to poverty and natural disasters.
Why does economic globalization fail to overcome poverty and inequality in the world?
It doesn’t fail to do this because it is not designed to overcome poverty and inequality. Economic globalization is tasked with exploiting poverty and increasing inequality.It exploits poverty by moving factories in First World nations that had been good paying union jobs that supported the middle class. The factories were moved to reduce labor costs and increase profits for the shareholders and to increase pay for management. It is designed to pay as little labor costs as possible In this scenario the cities that hosted these factories lose their tax revenues, meaning the city budget is destroyed. People leave the city or stay and things start to fall apart. The now unemployed workers are poor, and if they are older and untrained in other areas unlikely to get jobs that can help them keep their middle class statuses. Meanwhile, the stockholders and executives get richer.And this is precisely what happened over the last 40 years.
Why doesn't Peter Singer reject capitalism and support an alternative system as a means of eradicating poverty?
Peter Singer is not an economist. He is in favour of whichever system creates the best outcomes, but we need economics and social science to fully answer that question. If the facts turn out that some system other than capitalism produces the best outcomes, Peter Singer (and other consequentialists) would be in favour of that other system. Of course, it partly depends on what we mean by capitalism. Certainly, Singer is in favour of at least some State regulation of the economy (it's a long time since I read One World, but I think he supports an aggressive form of carbon trading. That's a market solution, but with the State deciding what initial endowment limits are permitted etc). I suspect he would also be in favour of a European style welfare State. I personally think such things are compatible with capitalism, but some eg. Libertarians might disagree.Singer also criticized Rawls' Law of Peoples, instead saying that the Rawlsian project should support an international difference principle. This is a very radical way of eradicating poverty compared to current methods. Yes, it might happen within the framework of markets and private ownership, but a world governed by the difference principle (let alone an international difference principle) would be a very different world to the one we have now. A better world in my opinion. One final thing to consider is feasibility. Non capitalist systems might now look hopelessly utopian.
Can someone help me with a homework question?
I just read through The Singer Solution to World Poverty and got asked the question: This selection appeared in the New York Times Magazine (1999). What does that fact tell you about the audience to whom Singer is appealing?