Assignment 5 – Is this
OK?
I think that we should individually strive to eliminate the problem of
poverty. Now this is not a question of saving the lives of people, as the last
assignment suggested, this is a case of attempting to eliminate the
weighting effects of poverty & attempt to improve the standard of living
for the 4 billion people who live in poverty.
During my research, I found that the most expensive shoes are
$3,000,000.00 and, the link to the picture that is attached to our
assignment was not available, but for the sake of this assignment I will
assume the shoes mentioned the assignment to be true.
If we had to look at this scenario in terms of the fairest distribution of stuff
per utilitarian, off the top of my head I would not be able to conclude that
the total net benefits to the population. I will elaborate:
Shoes have utilitarian attributes, as they protect your feet, and there are
certain shoes enhance your performance. Athletic shoes can improve your
posture when running. But the shoes in question are hedonic, they look
uncomfortable, and I see no practical reason for their existence.
The utilitarian ethics philosopher, Peter Singer, stated, ‘The World
Bank defines those who are in extreme poverty to have a purchasing
power of $1.25 U.S. per day.’ He then further explained that you could
save lives of people in poverty by using the money it would cost to buy
a pair of shoes. Peter Singer assumes them to be anywhere between
$300 to $1,000. Mr. Singer didn’t state how many lives would be saved
with +-
$1000 U.S. But just imagine how many lives could be saved, if the
person who would be in the financial position to purchase the $1.97
Billion shoes invested that money towards assisting the people in
poverty.
If we move over to the subject of common intuitions, the pendulum will
swing to the other side, my thoughts regarding this scenario change
completely.
Who is deserving?
I think that if someone can afford those shoes then they are deserving of
them! Just as the example in our lecture notes state, ‘If Bill Gates is smart
and worked exceedingly hard. He deserves his money.’
Is it a need?
I touched on this earlier on in my assignment, shoes are supposed to
protect your feet, but the shoes in question, do not look comfortable, and
may cause more damage. (i.e. Twisting an ankle because of a minor fall or
blisters) I do not think that anyone would need those shoes, except maybe
an artist so that he could paint & sell the picture.
, However, it is safe to say that the 4 million odd people living in poverty
are deserving of a small portion of the money that would be used to
purchase the shoes. As mentioned earlier in my argument on the topic of
utilitarianism – which leads me to the final question in the topic of
common intuition.
Benefiting the most.
The price of a single pair of shoes could possibly eliminate poverty
altogether if we all adopted Mr Peter Singers approach.
Now for the tough part! If we had to adopt the teachings of John Rawls
‘Veil of Ignorance.’ The world would be no better than it is today, the
veil of ignorance disregards everyone’s background and gives us an
ultimatum. If we were to make up a policy and assume ignorance about
the role each person has in society, and assuming the poverty rate is
50%, we all have a one in two chance of living in poverty.
OK?
I think that we should individually strive to eliminate the problem of
poverty. Now this is not a question of saving the lives of people, as the last
assignment suggested, this is a case of attempting to eliminate the
weighting effects of poverty & attempt to improve the standard of living
for the 4 billion people who live in poverty.
During my research, I found that the most expensive shoes are
$3,000,000.00 and, the link to the picture that is attached to our
assignment was not available, but for the sake of this assignment I will
assume the shoes mentioned the assignment to be true.
If we had to look at this scenario in terms of the fairest distribution of stuff
per utilitarian, off the top of my head I would not be able to conclude that
the total net benefits to the population. I will elaborate:
Shoes have utilitarian attributes, as they protect your feet, and there are
certain shoes enhance your performance. Athletic shoes can improve your
posture when running. But the shoes in question are hedonic, they look
uncomfortable, and I see no practical reason for their existence.
The utilitarian ethics philosopher, Peter Singer, stated, ‘The World
Bank defines those who are in extreme poverty to have a purchasing
power of $1.25 U.S. per day.’ He then further explained that you could
save lives of people in poverty by using the money it would cost to buy
a pair of shoes. Peter Singer assumes them to be anywhere between
$300 to $1,000. Mr. Singer didn’t state how many lives would be saved
with +-
$1000 U.S. But just imagine how many lives could be saved, if the
person who would be in the financial position to purchase the $1.97
Billion shoes invested that money towards assisting the people in
poverty.
If we move over to the subject of common intuitions, the pendulum will
swing to the other side, my thoughts regarding this scenario change
completely.
Who is deserving?
I think that if someone can afford those shoes then they are deserving of
them! Just as the example in our lecture notes state, ‘If Bill Gates is smart
and worked exceedingly hard. He deserves his money.’
Is it a need?
I touched on this earlier on in my assignment, shoes are supposed to
protect your feet, but the shoes in question, do not look comfortable, and
may cause more damage. (i.e. Twisting an ankle because of a minor fall or
blisters) I do not think that anyone would need those shoes, except maybe
an artist so that he could paint & sell the picture.
, However, it is safe to say that the 4 million odd people living in poverty
are deserving of a small portion of the money that would be used to
purchase the shoes. As mentioned earlier in my argument on the topic of
utilitarianism – which leads me to the final question in the topic of
common intuition.
Benefiting the most.
The price of a single pair of shoes could possibly eliminate poverty
altogether if we all adopted Mr Peter Singers approach.
Now for the tough part! If we had to adopt the teachings of John Rawls
‘Veil of Ignorance.’ The world would be no better than it is today, the
veil of ignorance disregards everyone’s background and gives us an
ultimatum. If we were to make up a policy and assume ignorance about
the role each person has in society, and assuming the poverty rate is
50%, we all have a one in two chance of living in poverty.
