Rich And Poor Rhetorical Analysis

Everywhere on the globe, organ sales are illegal, illustrating strong consensus that organs shouldn’t be subjected to sale. The main reason, is that the administration of the market has proven extraordinarily difficult and has failed, says newint.org. Capitalistic markets with profit incentives lead those acting in the market to seek profit over all other objectives. Where does this leave the donor and recipient? Will their best interests be served in such a structure?

In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer argues that some morally good actions, such as donating to relief funds and charitable organizations, should be duties. His argument is as follows: 1) Suffering and death are bad, whether from starvation, lack of shelter, or insufficient medical care. (P1) 2) We are morally obligated to prevent bad things from happening if we are able to do so and we would not sacrifice anything morally equivalent in the process.

Critical Review The Working Poor: Invisible in America David K. Shipler is a book that could be most accurately described as eye-opening. Shipler opens up the book on his claim that “nobody who works hard should be poor in America.” America is built upon the idea that the harder one works, the better off one will be. Shipler then goes on to explain how the poor, often times, work the hardest jobs and are put into the worse conditions, but still do not grow to become the most successful. Using their lives as examples, Shipler illustrates the struggles the working poor face while attempting to escape poverty.

Singer’s Solution Good or Not? Who wouldn’t want to find a solution to end or reduce poverty in the world? A utilitarian philosopher, Peter Singer stated his own solution in his essay called “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”. Singer’s solution is simple: people shouldn’t be spend their money on luxuries, instead they should donate their money to overseas aid organizations. Peter uses two characters in his essay in hope to get to the hearts and minds of the people, and encourage them to donate.

3. The difference between hunger and malnutrition is malnutrition means the body does not have the vitamins and nutrients enough to grow or fight disease. In developing countries with poor sanitation, malnutrition makes children and adults are more susceptible to disease. 4. Poverty is the main cause of hunger, and hunger is the cause of poverty.

While it is crucial to consider social exclusion discourse on homelessness, Sheedy (2015) critiques that focus on social exclusion of the poor at an individual level diverts the attention away from allocation of resources and redistribution of wealth. In other words, focus on improving experiences of socially marginalised groups such as people who are homeless and helping them to reintegrate into the society are vital but this appears to address just the symptoms of poverty rather than socio-economic causes of poverty (Sheedy, 2015). According to sociologist Herbert Gans, “the prime obstacles to the elimination of poverty lie in economic system that is dedicated to the maintenance and increase of wealth among the already affluent” (as cited

The purported causes of civil wars cannot be simply put into two boxes, because by doing this, ongoing dynamics leading up to the conflict are entirely ignored, which in fact causes an inaccurate understanding of the situation. Greed and grievance are probably rather reinforcing then conflicting (Nathan, Boix, other), by disregarding this correlation scholars do not see the whole picture and therefor may give poor policy advices: “A good doctor will need to get some idea of the nature of the disease before rushing to the medicine cabinet to pull out a remedy” (Keen). As for a doctor, it is also crucial for the international community to first understand dynamics and interactions driving/guiding a society into conflict before intervening to prevent this. Any measure, which is based on a decision, which was lacking profound and in-depth understanding of the nature of the conflict provoking environment, may even worsen the situation as it is based on a false diagnostic in the first place. Intervention measures of the IMF can serve as example.

In chapter three we discovered that Rawlsian fairness requires that we give up our surplus to provide what others lack. This impartial perspective can only be achieved, however, under what Rawls terms a ‘veil of ignorance’ experienced by an autonomous legislator or an impartial spectator, respectively. Actually, Rawls argues at great length why we should accept the difference principle, namely because no one knows behind the veil of ignorance if he might end up as the least well-off, giving him a reason to adopt a risk-avoiding strategy, i.e. implementing the difference principle. It is prima facie unfair, according to Rawls, to allow the least-well-off to starve to death simply because of their own bad luck, which merely appears to point to ‘formal impartiality’ as ‘formally concerning for all’. In contrary, a just or non-formal impartiality might allow special consideration for persons who have traditionally been marginalized or subject to discrimination.

From an open strategy viewpoint, if the administration needs to guarantee that financial plans for social privileges and open wellbeing nets don 't expand because of interest, then it is essential to advance monetary motivating forces that urge individuals to work. Considering how $7 is just a couple of dollars far from the neediness line, the present level of consolation is deficient. So as to accomplish genuine financial help, Americans need to quit fooling around about what it takes to manage the cost of a negligible way of life, as opposed to proceeding with an arrangement that keeps such a variety of individuals living on the edge of

To warrant my statement, the theory of moral responsibilities and utilitarian approach will be taken into consideration. To impartially resolve a moral dilemma, one ought to choose between the options that has greater weight. In order to determine the weights of moral responsibilities, a theory is greatly needed. One theory can be taken from Michael J. Sandel’s book entitled

In chapter two of Money, Greed, and God, Jay W. Richards says that the federal government doesn 't appropriately distribute welfare to those who need it. In addition, Richards says that the government should simply stay out of matters this small because they could be better handled by smaller more locally run organizations. In essence, the federal government is “too big” to know how to help the needy. I completely disagree with this assertion. Although the federal government is big and oblivious to who exactly needs what, it is still a necessary part of the welfare distribution system because of the money it has and all the power needed to deliver said funds.

In effect, the individual member leans towards individualistic policies that are beneficial to maintaining office. In Mayhew’s argument he presents the “marginal congressman”, making the point that individuals should ignore national trends and, “…treat them as acts of God over which they can exercise no control.” (p. 129). As he states further, “It makes much more sense to devote resources to things over which they think they can have some control.”