Why Poor People Are More Generous Than The Rich An anonymous article published by the online newspaper, The Economist, explains the revolutionary experiments conducted by Paul Piff and makes the unconventional statement that it is the poor, not the rich, who are inclined to charity. The thought of poor people being more generous than the rich is something that wouldn’t make sense to most. Some may ask themselves, “Why would someone who has “less,” give more?” But this question is one that I have never had to ask myself. I come from a single-parent, lower-middle class household in one of the poorest sides of San Antonio, Texas, and I have been collecting direct evidence on why Paul Piff is right for my entire life, before I had even read about …show more content…
I have seen it first hand though my family. Growing up, I was the “poorest” one out of my friends. But despite the fact that my mom made less than the other parents, I was rich in many other ways. My mom always made sure I had money in my pocket to buy food or something I wanted from where I went. She always offered to buy my friends food, pay for outings, and give to charity. Meanwhile, some of my friends were going places with no money in their pockets, showing up to a party empty handed, and giving significantly less than what I saw my mom giving to charity, even though it was obvious that their parents made more money. Compassion and empathy have been and always will be my mom’s drive to giving. Piff’s experiments raise yet another question, why would wealth and status decrease our feelings of compassion for others? Piff and his colleagues have concluded that it is linked with how affluence and abundance give us a sense of autonomy and independence from others. Basically, the less we rely on others, the less we may care about their feelings. This directly supports the claim that compassion and empathy are what drive my mom to be so generous. We have had to rely on people many times and haven’t had that sense of abundance, therefore we are connected with the feelings of those around us, which in turn leads us to want to help and give
Peter Singer a philosopher and professor at Princeton University who wrote the essay titled “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, where he argues that wealthy people have a moral obligation to help provide to developing nation’s resources that would increase their standard of living and decrease death due to starvation, exposure, and preventable sicknesses. John Arthur’s essay argues that Singer says that all affluent people have a moral obligation to give their money to poor people to the extent that the wealthy person would be on the same level as the poor person, poor people have no positive right to our assistance, and wealthy people have a negative right to their property, which weighs against their obligation.
Most affluent Americans love feeling philanthropic. Many of us privileged people enjoy the sensation because we feel we are genuinely improving the world by giving to the “less fortunate.” Yet, so many “successful” Americans secretly despise the people who are “less fortunate,” casting them off as “lazy” or “selfish.” After all, why should we share? We have worked hard for whatever status we have achieved. Why should we care about the children of other people? Or, why do we not care about these sad situations? From where do our notions of charity come? One source might be a mere board game—a board game employed interestingly by great novelist Ken Kesey in the hippy Bible he wrote in 1962 to teach readers about the ways he was perceiving American ways of life. Kesey inserts the game of Monopoly as the central symbol in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest because it signifies society and the corrupt desire for absolute power.
Often times, the middle and upper classes underestimate the amount of poverty left in our society. In “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Peter Singer reaches out to the lucrative to help the misfortune. Although Singer believes that, the wealthy has a responsibility in providing help to the less fortunate, Singer conducts theories in which he explains how we as Americans spend more on luxuries rather than necessities. If the wealthy are fortunate enough to go out to fancy meals, they should be able to provide food for a poor family or medicine for the children. The negative attributes outweigh the positive due to the lack of supporting detail from the positive in which helps us better understand that helping people is the right thing to do rather than sitting back and doing nothing but demands that Americans donate every cent of their extra money to help the poor. According to Singer, if we provide a foundation for the misfortune we will not only make the world a better place but we will feel a relief inside that world poverty will soon end. The argument singer gives has no supporting details in which he tries and persuade the wealthy to donate money to the poor without clear thoughts.
Charity handouts did not necessarily help feed a poor family, but aimed to “... produce most beneficial results to [the] community” (Shi 60). This meant that the wealthy didn’t directly give citizens money, but built free public utilities. Among these free services were libraries and and centers for scientific research. Without a doubt, these buildings do not help put food on the table. They do, however, create a sense of hope for educational and social improvement for the working class.
Most people feel that they should help the needy in some way or another. The problem is how to help them. This problem generally arises when there is a person sitting on the side of the road in battered clothes with a cardboard sign asking for some form of help, almost always in the form of money. Yet something makes the giver uneasy. What will they do with this money? Do they need this money? Will it really help them? The truth of the matter is, it won't. However, there are things that can be done to help the needy. Giving money to a reliable foundation will help the helpless, something that transferring money from a pocket to a man's tin can will never do.
Peter Singer, in his influential essay “Famine, Affluence and Poverty”, argues that affluent people have the moral obligation to contribute to charity in order to save the poor from suffering; any spending on luxuries would be unjustified as long as it can be used to improve other’s lives. In developing his argument, Singer involved one crucial premise known as the Principle of Sacrifice—“If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it”. To show that such principle has the property to be held universal, Singer refers to a scenario in which a person witnesses a drowning child. Most people, by common sense, hold that the witness has the moral duty to rescue the child despite some potential costs. Since letting people die in poverty is no different from watching a child drowning without offering any help, Singer goes on and concludes that affluent people have the moral duty to keep donating to the poor until an increment of money makes no further contribution.
On 1/13/16, I watched the TED Talk of Gregory Boyle, “Compassion and Kinship,” a founder and executive director of Homeboy Industries. He explained how we should form a relationship with others so that we can come together as one rather than being enemies towards each other. Specifically he claimed that having kinship and compassion breaks down barriers it allows people who don’t fit society’s standards know that their life has value, meaning, and worth. As he said, “How can we achieve a certain kind of compassion that stands in awe at what the poor have to carry rather than stand in judgement at how they carry it, for the measure of our compassion lies not in our service of those on the margins but in our willingness to see ourselves and kinship with them and mutuality.” Although some people believe that once they choose to make bad decisions, they have
The historical context of inequality in the United States can be can be traced back to the American South and the times of the Civil War. The slave trade, Emancipation Proclamation and 13th Amendment largely contribute to the inequality presented of the African American population.
This topic about helping poor people get out of poverty is a critical issue. Almost 800 million people across the globe, most of them children, live with hunger or malnutrition as a regular fact of life. They live in desperate poverty, which means they die younger than they should, struggle with hunger and disease, and live with little hope and less opportunity for a life of dignity (USCCB). Poverty poses a dramatic problem of justice; in its various forms and with its various effects, it is characterized by an unequal growth that does not recognize the "equal right of all people to take their seat ‘at the table of the common banquet' (Social Doctrine of the Church) ."
Economics of Reich “Why the Rich are getting Richer and the Poor, Poorer” written by Robert Reich, describes as the title says, why the rich are getting richer and the poor, poorer. In Reich’s essay, he delves into numerous reasons and gives examples of each. It makes one wonder if the world will continue on the path of complete economic separation between the rich and the poor. One very important factor Reich examines in his essay is that large corporations are always trying to find the edge, whether that is new technology or cheaper wages. One may ask, how does that affect me?
...esult, the more directly one sees their personal efforts impact someone else, the more happiness one can gain from the experience of giving. Sometimes generosity requires pushing past a feeling of reluctance because people all instinctively want to keep good things for themselves, but once one is over this feeling, they will feel satisfaction in knowing that they have made a difference in someone else’s life. However, if one lives without generosity but is not selfish, they can still have pleasure from other virtues.
Wealth inequality is the uneven distribution of resources in a given state or population, which can also be called the wealth gap. The sum of one’s total assets excluding the liabilities equates the person’s wealth also known as the net worth. Investments, residents, cash, real estates and everything owned by an individual are their assets.In reality, the United States is among the richest countries in the world, though a few people creating a major gap between the richest, the middle class and the poor control most of its wealth. For more than a quarter of a century, only the rich American families have shown an increase to their net worth.Thisis a worrying fact for the less fortunate in the country and calls for assessment (Baranoff, 2015).
Income inequality continues to increase in today’s world, especially in the United States. Income inequality means the unequal distribution between individuals’ assets, wealth, or income. In the Twilight of the Elites, Christopher Hayes, a liberal journalist, states the inequality gap between the rich and the poor are increasing widening, and there need to have things done - tax the rich, provide better education - in order to shortening the inequality gap. America is a meritocratic country, which means that everybody has equal opportunity to be successful regardless of their class privileges or wealth. However, equality of opportunity does not equal equality of outcomes. People are having more opportunities to find a better job, but their incomes are a lot less compared to the top ten percent rich people. In this way, the poor people will never climb up the ladder to high status and become millionaires. Therefore, the government needs to increase all the tax rates on rich people in order to reduce income inequality.
Wealth usually refers to money, property or something which has economic value attached to it. It is the abundance of objects of value and also the state of having accumulated these objects. The use of the word itself assumes some socially-accepted means of identifying objects, land, or money as "belonging to" someone, i.e. a broadly accepted notion of property and a means of protection of that property that can be invoked with minimal (or, ideally, no) effort and expense on the part of the owner. Concepts of wealth vary among societies. Anthropology characterizes societies, in part, based on a society's concept of wealth, and the institutional structures and power used to protect this wealth. Several types
Poor people are filled with hope and the desire to help others that are in need of