Children Who Witness Violence

Being born during the civil war had exposed me to violence at the early age.  I have witness the guns fire attack, the fighting jet attack, and the dead bodies of killed victims. Unfortunately, millions of children are exposed to severe and chronic violence at the early age of childhood. It is terrible to imagine a five to fifteen years old child witnessing violence at home, school, and street. The children who witness violence can be affected emotionally, physically, expressively; they can experience anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, and fear. The exposure of children to violence at early age has been explored in the mess media such as music, books, newspaper, and television. Music particularly, has been used as channel for children who witness violence to express their feelings. Also the music serves a channel to educate public about the negative aspect of exposing children to violence at early age.

Many artists have written numerous songs about violence and children. The song with the title “Runaway love” was written by Christopher Bridges, Dougles Davis, Keri Lyn Hilson, Jamal Jones, and R Walter. The song was performed by Ludacris feat. Mary J. Blige. The song features three verses of a fictional story telling the troubles in the lives of three runaway female teenagers; a nine year old named Lisa, a ten year old named Nicole, and an eleven year old named Erica. Each of the girls ended up running away to escape her owns problems.

The first version involves Lisa, the nine year old girl, who never met her father. Lisa’s mother is addicted to drugs. She brings men to the house at different hours of the night, and the men end up in the Lisa’s room. “. . . Sneaking in her room when her momma’s knocked out, trying to have his way and litter Lisa says ouch, she tries to resist but then all he does is beat her”. When the nine old Lisa tries to stand firm, they just beat her, and when she informs her mom about it, she doesn’t believe her. Unfortunately, hundred thousands of children are raised by drugs addicted parent(s) who have no moral obligation of being parent(s). When parent(s) consumes illegal drugs, it can mean risks to the health and well-being of their children. According to the media, children who are raised by drugs addict parent(s) are more like to witness and experience violence at home then children raised by parent(s) who don’t consumer drugs and alcohols. In reality, many children witness drug violence or crimes associate with drugs at home/neighborhood. In fact, there are numerous cases in which we have seen or read about runaway child in the mess media. According to National Runaway Switchboard, “Between 1.6 and 2.8 million youth run away in a year”. Every year, 1.6 to 2.8 million youth runs away from homes. Perhaps, runaway children are escaping abusive violence at home or mentally disturbed by the violence they had witness. “In one study, 79% of adolescent runaways and homeless youth reported alcohol use in the home, 53% reported problem drinking in the home, and 54% reported drug use in the home” (Hope Networks). There is no doubt that drugs are always association with violence at home and in poor communities. In the poor communities, consumer or activities of drugs are widely spread to extent that it affects the well being of children at home/neighborhood. In addition, many children in poor communities don’t know their father. And being with father is devastating to many children. In a contrast to traditional two parent homes, children raised in single parent homes are at risk for number of less desirable outcome. Some children who witness violence and abuse at home are left with no alternative, but to runaway just like Lisa.

The second version involves Nicole, a lonely ten year old girl. Nicole was disturbed by fact that she wasn’t beautiful and nobody liked her, and she kept wondering why. In addition, Nicole was physically abused by an alcoholic stepfather. “Alcoholic step-dad always wanna strike her, yells and abuses, leaves her with some bruises”. Sadly, Nicole lies to schoolteachers when she is asked why she has bruises. To endure the abuse by her stepfather, Nicole promises her best friend, Stacy to be close friend forever. Unfortunately, Stacy was killed in front of Nicole by a drive by shooting and she was traumatized by the incident. Eventually, Nicole decides to run away. It is misfortunate that children in the urban cities of the United States have experience and witness high levels of crime and violence. Caitlin Johnson state, “Children who witness violence in their homes and neighborhoods, recent studies suggest, may not be as resilient as medical and mental health specialists once believed. It turns out that kids exposed to violence—especially the estimated 3.3 million to 10 million kids a year who've seen brutality between people they love and trust—are often as traumatized as those who are directly victimized”. It is unfortunate that the medical and mental health specialists have failed to acknowledge the surprising of children who witness violence. According to McAlister Groves, Carol who is now an adult is still traumatized by the violence she witness when she was eight year old. One day, Carol came home from school and found her mother severely beaten and tied up in their home. “Her mother had blood on her face; an eye was badly swollen. Her clothes were torn”. She later learned that two men broke into their home; raped and terrorized her mother before they fled. Carol concluded by saying that, “I am not the same person I was before my mom was raped”. Sadly, millions of children witness these kinds of assaults everyday; hence, they are helpless to prevent it or get help. The FBI estimates that 72 of every 100,000 females in the United States were raped last year (Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Statistics, 1996). Such traumatic experiences can have lasting negative effects on child’s health. According to research, children who witness domestic violence face increased risks: the risk of exposure to traumatic events, the risk of neglect, the risk of being directly abused, and the risk of losing one or both of their parents. All the negative outcomes of witnessing violence may affect child’s well-being, safety, and stability.

The final version involves Erica, an eleven year old girl who was pregnant by a sixteen year boyfriend. Erica thought she was in love, but after she became pregnant, her boyfriend bails out on her due to the fact that he is not ready to be a father. In addition, Erica’s family is poor, so she has no money for an abortion. Erica knows that if she tells her mom she is pregnant, her mom will be very angry and disappointed with her. At the end, Erica runs away to avoid confronting her mother. In fact, Erica didn’t witness any violence according to the song, but she fear how her mother will respond to her pregnancy. Perhaps, Erica was a victim of child abuse or she had witness a domestic violence in the past. According to Rosemary Chalk, “. . . more than 90 percent of all reported incidents of child maltreatment occur in families below the median income (estimated at $40,611 in 1995); 40 to 50 percent of all incidents occur within families whose income fall above the poverty level (estimated at $15,569) but below the median income”. Children who are raised by poor families are more like to witness violence than children who are raised by rich families. It is possible that Erica had witness violence in the past because she didn’t runaway for no reason. Children who run away from home are normally fueled by an overload of depression, fear, and anxiety that are driven by witness of violence. The song is basically reminding the public about what is happening in our communities. Children are running away to avoid violence the witness at home.

The song with the title “I’m Ok” is written by Christina Aguilera and performed by Christina Aguilera. The song describes the story of a girl in her teen who learn how to grow up living in an abusive house that she called home. She never knew where to turn for protection. It hurt every time she sees her mother being beaten by her father and hearing all the shouting/screaming. Simply, she cries in her room hoping that tomorrow will be brighten day. The pain she endures at the early age remains the same and she still remembers how she was traumatized by her abusive father. “. . . Daddy, don’t you understand the damage you have done, to you it’s just a memory, but for me it still lives on. It’s not so easy to forget all the lines you left along her neck when I was thrown against cold stairs and every day I’m afraid to come home in fear of what I might see there”. In overall, the lyric is expressing the feeling of child who witness violence in her home. Her abusive father has caused a pain she will live on for the rest of her lives. Andrew Karmen states, “Being neglected and/ or physically abused and/ or sexually abused as a youngster becomes a risk factor for entering into a cycle of delinquency, crime, and violence later in life”. Basically, those who were physically abused face the gravest risks of becoming lawbreakers. A research into child abused indicates that beatings are more likely to occur when the two parents fight viciously; one or both of the parents are currently drug takers and/or alcoholics or the mother/father was raised by a substance-abusing parent.

In reality, children are exposed to violence at home and public places. For example, a man was killed last month (July) in the present of two children at the gas station in federal way, Washington. According to University of Pittsburgh, “In Los Angeles, it is estimated that children witness one of every five murders”. Basically, varieties of violence/crimes occur every day in the United States. Violence/crime ranges as car accident, domestic violence, homicide, street fighting, robbery, gangs, property damage, and much more. Children are in danger of being traumatized by violence they have witness at early age. According to University of Pittsburgh, “children who witness violence offer exhibit symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, such as withdrawal, anxiety, or nightmares”. When an adult is out of control, there is very little to nothing that a child can do to prevent violence; hence, violence at home enhances the development of post-traumatic stress disorder in children. Seeing a parent or relative assaulted can be devastating to the child. According to Dr. Shakira Franco Suglia, “. . . important biological effects occur in children living in high-crime neighborhoods, although with less severe distress symptoms than those experienced by children diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. As a result, they may not come to the attention of healthcare providers and a large number of children may be impacted with broad adverse health effects”. Children who witness violence in their homes, experience a broad range of negative developmental such as sleep disturbances, academic difficulties, separation anxiety, depression, aggression, passivity or withdrawal, distractibility, concentration problems, hyper vigilance, and desensitization to violent events.

In conclusion, children who witness violence at early age tend to be negatively affected by what they had witness and experiences. Unfortunately, millions of children are exposed to violence everyday either at home, street, or public places. According to scholars, children who witness violence developed a post-traumatic stress disorder that affected them emotionally, physically, expressively; they can experience anxiety, depression, sleep disorders, and fear. Many artists have written numerous songs with the purpose of educating public about negative aspect of exposing children to violence. Some of children who are raised by abusive families; where children experience a daily environment of inconsistency, chaos, fear, abandonment, denial, and real or potential violence are left with no alternative, but to runaway in order to escape violence.

Bibliography

Chalk, Rosemary and Patricia King, Patricia. Violence in Families Washington, D.C. National Academy Press, 1998
Garbarino, James. “Children Who See Too Much: Lessons from the Child Witness to Violence Project” http://books.google.com/books?id=3_wTck5iC6MC&dq=child+who+witness+violence+book&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=RSWWxM3nas&sig=6Ba13YwpPJZTSCLiR9xt4nOFCZ4&hl=en&ei=sW58Sr2OGYn-MJe04O4C&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Groves, Betsy. Children Who See Too Much: Lesions from the Child Witness to Violence Project” Massachusetts: Beacon Press, 2002.

Hope Networks. “CHILDREN OF ADDICTED PARENTS: Important Facts” Copyright© 2005 Hope Networks Inc., 08/12/2009 http://www.hopenetworks.org/addiction/Children%20of%20Addicts.htm

Karmen, Andrew. “Crime Victims: an introduction to victimology” Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 2007.
Johnson, Caitlin. “Hidden Victims: Caring for Children Who Witness Violence” March 20, 2000.

Suglia, Shakira. “Children who witness violence show symptoms of post-traumatic stress”, 22. April 2009 14:28.

University of Pittsburgh Office of Child Development. “Witness to violence” Report # 16 Effects of Violence,1998. < http://www.education.pitt.edu/ocd/publications/backgrounds/16.pdf>

Neo-liberal policies in Africa

Neo-liberal policies in Africa?

It is not surprising that the opening markets in East Africa are filled with mitumba clothes. Mitumba is a Kiswahili word associated with Americans and Europeans’ castoffs clothes or second hand clothes. The inability of people to afford new clothes and the state of being poor due to the negative aspect of neo-liberal policies has forced people to purchase Americans and Europeans’ castoffs clothes. As a matter of fact, it is worth wearing Americans and Europeans’ castoffs clothes rather than wearing nothing at all. The neo-liberal policies in Africa have facilitated the import of mitumba/castoffs clothes. Hence, the cheap imported castoffs clothes have handicapped textile industries in East Africa. The least developed countries analysts would say that the neo-liberal policies have impacted Africa in varying degrees. It undermined the growth of local textile industries, reduces the state control over the national economy, and promotes unfair competition from import.

The import of Mitumba into East Africa has drastically undermined the growth of local textile industries and causes massive unemployment. In addition, the import of mitumba imposes barrier for local textile industry to compete with cheap imported clothes. According to Pietra Rivoli, “…the swells of mitumba not only shrink employment in the textile factories, the also keep Africa from putting its foot on the development ladder offered by textile manufacturing—a ladder, as we have seen, that has lifted China, the United States, Japan, and countless other countries into the industrial age” (199). In fact, the imports of cheap mitumba have not only shrunk the employment, it also forced greater obstacles toward the development of local textile industries. For instance, when the slavery was abolished in the United States, the cotton farmers in the southern states were left with no alternatives, but to find a solution to their plantations’ obstacles which have led to advance in technology. The availability of cheaper castoffs clothes has made it impossible to neither to invest in technology nor develop the textile industries. Innovation in cotton textile industries is the takeoff for the modern economy in which the economic will grow. The collapse of Tanzanian’s textile industries has been linked to cheap castoffs clothes, textile factories obstacles [such as corruption, low education levels, insecure property rights, bad governance, macroeconomic and political instability], and other obstacle imposed by neo-liberal policies such as trade barriers, reduction of tariffs, and subsidies.

According to Africa News Network, “In the early 1980s, the United States, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank used the debt stranglehold that they had over many African states to force them to adopt neo-liberal economic policies through Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAP)”. Under the structural Adjustment programmes, the least developed countries were forced to reduce their import tariffs and agriculture subsidies, privatize government held enterprises, liberalize trader, etc. The liberal free traders argue that the Structural Adjustment Programmes are essential to the development of country from crisis to economic recovery and growth. Hence, liberalizing the economic in the least developed countries while the United States and Europeans countries continued to subsidies their textile industries and maintain high tariffs on certain agriculture products is a suicide to least developed countries. For instance, the United States continued to subsidies the textile industries through agriculture subsidies programs such Step 2 Cotton Subsidies. Under the agriculture Subsidies program, the United States government compensates American textile mills to buy Americans cotton, aid farmers to export cotton, and subsidizes the purchase of crop insurance; these policies aims to excluded foreign cotton producers from the U.S. market while protecting the textile and agriculture industries. In addition, the government protects cotton farmers from variety of business risks such as bad weather, bad credit, bad luck, and taught competition through 2002 Farm Act. Pietra Rivoli states, “The Crop Disaster Program reimburses farmers for losses due to unusual weather or related conditions, while Farm Loan Programs provide financing to farmers who are unable to get credit from private sources” (40-51). The subsidies policies of the world's richest nations are destroying economic development in the poorest countries such as Tanzania and the rest of third world countries around the globe. It is difficult for cotton farmers in the least developed countries to compete with the subsidized famers in the developed countries. The subsidization to cotton farmers in richest countries has driven down the cotton price to extent in which farmers in least developed countries are incapable to produce. Hence, they analysts in the least developed countries would view practical of subsidies in developed countries as threat to economic growth in least developed countries.

The neo-liberal policies aims to remove all bureaucratic control over markets in favor of attracting foreign investors through privatization of government held enterprises, liberalization of trades, investments, and high interest rates. According to Africa News Network, “American and European companies have also used the 'free' trade regime to swoop into different countries in Africa to take over entire markets or set up export operations”. The neo-liberal policies in Africa are empowering foreign investors to take over the entire markets in least developed countries. Lowering tariffs and removing bureaucratic control would encourage corporations in the American and European to take advantage of economic through monopoly. Thus, they analysts in the least developed countries would reject neo-liberal policies. The least government intervention has contributed to the failure of textile industries in East Africa. For instance, the failure of Tanzanian government to provide subsidies to the local textile industries has led to the collapse of local industries. The government intervention is essential to economic growth and fair competition in least developed countries. Analysts in least developed countries would agree that there is a need for bureaucratic control on certain agriculture produces in order to compete equally, trade fairly, and takeoff for the modern economy.

Overall, enforcing the neo-liberal policies in the least developed countries is undermining their economic takeoff for the modern economy. It is unfair to enforce neo-liberal policies in least countries while the United States and Europeans countries continued to subsidies their textile industries and maintain high tariffs on certain agriculture products. The subsidies in the developed countries are destroying economic growth in the least developed countries.

Is it logical to kill animals to nourish ourselves?

Is it logical to kill animals to nourish ourselves? Of course it is logical to prey on animals to nourish ourselves for the purpose of surviving. For thousands of years, humans being have been preying on animals to maintain their survivor in this planet. It is unfortunate that inhabitants of this planet are carnivals; and being carnivals isn’t a voluntary choice, it is natural fact. All carnivals animals prey on other animals for purpose of nourishment. However, human beings have becomes a killing machine in contrast to other animals. Billions of animals are killed every year to nourish ourselves. In this essay, I will examine the differences between humans and other animals, Elisabeth Costello’s views on the lives of animals, and the contrast between Elisabeth Costello’s views (on humans and animals) with Nagel, Descartes, and Aristotle.

For the centuries, Homo sapiens were a part of the food chain. Animals fed on them and they fed on animals at same time. Homo sapiens [humans] lack physical advantages over other animals. It had to fight for its life with predators whose bodies were built for hunting and killing. On the other hand, Homo sapiens have the ability to speak while other animals don’t. The ability to speak has distinguished humans from other species on this planet. After centuries of evolution, humans have won the race of evolution for power among other species. We [humans] developed intellect and moral sensibilities and became more intelligent than any other animals on the planet. We [humans] developed the ability to utilize small tools and create weapons for both protection and nourishment. On the other hand, humans have become a killing machine; billions of animals are killed every year for nourishment, luxurious, and treatment. Animals’ bodies are used for clothing, medicine, tools, jewelry, and much more. In fact, humans evolve to the point where they feel sense of responsibility for their actions on this planet. One of these responsibilities is the care for other inhabitants of the planet. It is true that some Species had extinct and other Species are in danger of becoming extinct due to humans actions. Some people consider humans actions toward animals as immoral because animals feel pain and suffer just like humans. There have been numerous debates among philosophers and scholars about whether the fact that we consider animals as not endowed with rationality, consciousness or a soul allows us to believe that they are not on an equal footing with ourselves.

Elizabeth Costello, a fictional character of J.M. Coetzee, argues in defense of animals by first presenting an attack on developed reason. Costello is a writer, who had the honors to lead a seminar in Appleton College on two topics: The Philosophers and the Animals and The Poets and the Animals. In the speech on The Philosophers and the Animals, Elizabeth Costello makes an analogy of world war two’s crimes against humanity with meat factories. Millions of people were killed in world war two by Germany’s Nazis regime. People were jailed in what was known as concentration camps, a camp in which human were killed like animals. Of course Germans didn’t feed on their prisoners; thus, human parts were used to produce consume goods such as hairs. In reflection to concentration camps, Elizabeth Costello state that, “we are surrounded by an enterprise of degradation, cruelty and killing which rivals anything that the Third Reich was capable of, indeed dwarfs it, in that ours is an enterprise without end, self-regenerating, bringing rabbits, rats, poultry, live-stock ceaselessly into the world for the purpose of killing them” (J. M. Coetzee pg. 65). Like Germans, but in different purpose, humans use the bodies of animals for nourishment, clothes, jewelries, experimental and much more. Elizabeth Costello argues that Germans were accused of treating their prisoners [humans] like animals. The prisoners of the German concentration camps were though of as animals, thus they had to suffer and die in pain. This notion rise questions to why human mistreats animals. Is it because reason lets us believe that they do not feel pain or do not have a soul, rationality, or consciousness? Of course there is no inquiry about animals’ soul. According to Elizabeth Costello, “To be alive is to be a living soul. An animal – and we are all animals – is an embodied soul” (Coetzee, pg. 78). Living things are recognize if any of the following is present in it: “intellect, perception, moving and stopping with respect to place. Thus, animals have intellect, perception and ability to move and stop with respect to place. According to Aristotle, if an animal has a perception, then there is pain and pleasure and desire. Therefore, animals experience pain just like humans. Is it our reasoning that allows us to discriminate and degrade other animals?

According to Descartes, “The universe is built upon reason. God is a God of reason. The fact that through the application of reason we can come to understand the rules by, which the universe work proves that reason and the universe are of the same being. And the fact that animals lacking reason, cannot understand the universe but have simply to follow its rules blindly, proves that, unlike man, they are part of it but not part of its being; that man is godlike, animals thing like” (J. M. Coetzee pg. 67). Elizabeth Costello does not agree with Descartes’ point of view. She believes that reason comes from a certain spectrum of human thinking. To consider that humans are God-like and animals are thing-like based upon reason is nonsense. Descartes describes an animal as automata. A body made out of many peaces: bones, muscles, nerves, organs, blood, tissues, genes and all others. This machine is unique and much better designed and built than any machine built by humans. Automata acts through disposition of its organs, but not intellect. Animals can never arrange words in order and express opinion or respond to an opinion or question. Animals can imitate humans, for example parrots, they can speak humanly words, however, they do not have any knowledge of what they are speaking of. Even though there are very similar organs and disposition of bodies among animals and humans, animals do not have intellect like humans do. On the other hand, Elizabeth Costello argues that animals have intellect. She employs the record of Sultan, an ape whom the famous German scientist Wolfgang Kohler conducts experiments on to test the level of reasoning. Elizabeth Costello claims Sultan is always aware when he is being tested. “Why is he starving me? What did I do wrong? Why is he testing me?” (J. M. Coetzee pg. 72-73). However, these questions don’t reflect what scientists were looking for. It is impossible to justify an animal’s consciousness when we can’t experience what it is like to be that animal.

Thomas Nagel – the author of “What is it like to be a bat?” argues that to have consciousness is to have an experience. “To know whether an animal has a consciousness we must know what it is like to be that animal”. To know an animal’s consciousness, one must have an animal’s experience. For Nagel, it is impossible for a human to have the consciousness of an animal. While it is possible for one person to know what it is like to be another person. We can comprehend other person’s experience, but we can acknowledge if the person has a consciousness. In contrast, Elizabeth Costello disagrees with Thomas Nagel’s point of view. She state that, “If we are capable of thinking our own death, why on earth should we not be capable of thinking our way into the life of a bat?” despite Nagel’s suggestion that, “we need to be to experience bat life through the sense modalities of a bat”. Elizabeth Costello argues that, “to be a living bat is to be full of being; being fully a bat is like being fully human, which is also to be full of being” (J. M. Coetzee pg. 77). For something to live - to have perception, which means to feel, to have the sense of touch - that something needs to exist. If something exists and it has perception, then it is full of existence, it is what it is. It is a being.

In conclusion, this paper explore the differences between humans and other animals, Elisabeth Costello’s views on the lives of animals, and the contrast between Elisabeth Costello’s views with Nagel, Descartes, and Aristotle. The ability to speak had distinguished humans from other species on this planet. After centuries of evolution, humans developed intellect and moral sensibilities and became more intelligent than any other animals on the planet. We [humans] developed the ability to utilize small tools and create weapons for both protection and nourishment; thus, humans become a killing machine. I examine numerous debates among philosophers and scholars about whether the fact that we consider animals as not endowed with rationality, consciousness or a soul allows us to believe that they are not on an equal footing with ourselves. At the end, we are all animals and we share one planet. We all compete to survive; some are weak, strong, and intelligent but we are all animals. We are neither god-like nor thing-like, we all have a soul and we experience pain, pleasure, and desire.

ANARCHISM

How would the society be like without government, laws, police, or other authority? It is unrealistic to vision such society without forms of government; who will maintain order, provide protection, and enforce social contract? Anarchist advocates for the society with no government, laws, police, or forms of authority, but a society compose of a free association of all its members. This essay will criticize the theory or doctrine that all forms of government are unnecessary, oppressive, and undesirable and should be abolished. I will examine some aspect associated with anarchism theory such as freedom and crimes.
To begin with, anarchism claims to be a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, harmful, as well as unnecessary. Basically, “Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, taste, and inclinations”. It promotes the idea of a society where man can shape his own life without being subject to force by authority. In addition, equality and freedom are an important part of anarchism, since humans are naturally a free being. And all are equally free; hence, limited to their own ability and subject to the laws of nature.

However, anarchist fails to recognize the essential of government in the society. How will society fully exist with no form of authority to provide protection and maintain orders? As a matter of fact, it is impractical to have a society without forms of government or authority due to fair of chaos, death, and destruction. Government is necessary for the protection from outside enemies (outsider) and our fellow citizens; to preserve law and order, to enforce private contracts, to foster competitive markets, and provide public services. Government is collectively formed in the interest of society to maintain and stabilize the society.

We have witness what happened in Chile and Haiti due to the absent of government caused by earthquake destruction. In the short period of earthquake destruction in Chile and Haiti, there were chaos of killing, robbery, and associated crime caused by lack of authority to maintain laws and orders. These example illustrate that society can’t fully exist without forms of authority. Anarchism theory claims to rescue the self-respect and independence of the individual from all restraint and invasion by authority. “Only in freedom can man grow to his full stature; learn to think, realize the true force of the social bonds which knit men together, and which are the true foundation of a normal social life”. Anarchism claims that government invasion restraint our freedom, and without freedom, men can’t grow to his full stature and realize the true force of the social bonds that tie men together.

Anarchism favors the State of Nature; the state of perfect and complete liberty to conduct one’s life as one best sees fit, free from the interference of others. However, being in the state of nature doesn’t mean one is free to do anything that one please, or free to do anything that one judges to be in one’s interest. The state of Nature, which is on Locke’s view the basis of all morality, and given to us by God, commands that we not harm others with regards to their life, health, liberty, or possessions. Of course we all value the state of nature without interference; however, we need to understand that government is established for numerous reasons. Even in the state of nature, there must be forms of authority to interfere the law of nature. Freedom and equality alone can not bond men together in society. There must be forms of authority to protect freedom and equality. Freedom and equality can’t exist without authority. In the human history, the have been a practice of slavery due to the failure of recognizing other the right to life, health, and liberty. How would anarchism address the issues of slavery? A human who have been deny the right to life, health, and liberty due his/her race, language, or social class. Slavery occurs because there were not forms of government to recognize the right of other. As matter of fact, anarchism’s doctrine is a fairy tales; it will never succeed in establishing a society without forms of government. Forms of government are the back bone of society; without forms of authority, the society will collapse.

In the United States for instance, government plays a critical role in term of protection, preserving freedom, regulated markets, and provide public services such as welfares. I can imagine how the crisis would be like if there were no protection and government’s public services. Millions of American families received foods assistance (food stamps) and medical coupon from government. Being free and equal doesn’t mean all human have the same intellectual? Some people are intelligent, strong, weak, incompetence, or crazy (mental problem) how anarchism address of incompetence and mental disoriented; and therefore, can’t provide or contribute to the society. A society without forms of authority is character with chaos, death, and destruction with in the community; therefore, forms of government are critical to prosperity of society.

According to Goldman, “the individual and society have waged a relentless and bloody battle for ages, each striving for supremacy, because each was blind to the value and importance of the other, . . . the one a most potent fact for individual endeavor, for growth, aspiration, self-realization; the other an equally potent factor for mutual helpfulness and social well-being”. Anarchist claims that government’s oppressive has caused great destruct and limited our freedom to realize the true force of the social bonds which knit men together in society. In addition, anarchist claims that government is responsible for the killing of 100 millions people since world war either in war or in the hand of authority. I do understand why anarchist may feel that way, but abolishing the government will invite chaos, crimes, and ultimately destruction of society. In fact, anarchists are right; an individual strive for supremacy, because each was blind to the value and importance of the other. This is the reason why there should be forms of government to control individuals who strive for supremacy. The government is formed by the members of society with intention of providing protection and maintains orders in communities.

In overall, Anarchism is doctrine that all forms of government are unnecessary, oppressive, and undesirable and should be abolished. Anarchist advocates for a social order that is based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and fulfillment of individual desires, taste, and inclinations. On the other hand, anarchism is associated with negative aspects of destruction such as crimes. Society can not fully exist without forms of authority to provided protection, to preserve law and order, to enforce private contracts, to foster competitive markets, and to provide public services.

Reflection on Chocolat film

Chocolat is a romance film that tells the story of a mysterious woman who moves with her young daughter into a rural town in France, that was dominated by the local Catholic Church. Vianne Rocher and her six year old daughter move to a conservative town in rural France and opens up a chocolate shop across the street from the Catholic Church immediately after their arrival. Vianne Rocher and her daughter were met with resistance from conservative Catholics. The residents of town were skeptical about purchasing chocolate, because they view opens of chocolate shop as temptation to their religion faith. Gradually, Vianne Rocher uses her expert touch to create delicious chocolate/candy that is resistance by each customer. She was able to convince some customer with her exuberance and delicious chocolates except Comte De Reynaud, the mayor of town. Comte De Reynaud, who act as self-appointed moral authority for the entire town was determined to shut down Vianne Rocher’s chocolate shop. The mayor sees Vianne as an immoral provocateur and he is determined to do whatever possible under his authority to discourage Vianne from the town. Despite the hardship Vianne Rocher encountered, she was able to won over the villagers with help from her friends. Eventually, the moral message emerges at the end of film (Chocolat); a call for true freedom that comes by accepting others as they are, and allowing them the freedom to be all that God has created them to be. As result, Vianne and her daughter permanently settle in the town and everyone was happy.


The film (Chocolat) reveals number of social groups/institutions that aim to achieve different objectives. I selected three social groups/institutions that were portrays in the film (Chocolat). The three social groups/institutions are as follow, Vianne Rocher with her daughter Anouk, Catholic Church, and mayor.

Vianne Rocher is a young mother, who moves to a rural town in France and opens up a chocolate shop with her six year old daughter (Anouk). Vianne is not a Christian nor she believes in any religion, but she has the strength and ability to give unconditional love and acceptance to others regardless of culture or religion affiliation. On the other hand, Vianne Rocher wasn’t able to break free from her own troubled and ancient past. She kept the ashes of her deceased mother with whom she confers, and who seems to hold some control over her even from the pot. Vianne Rocher and her daughter Anouk never settle down; they moved with the north wind from place to place. I hear how Vianne and Anouk have traveled from city to city also bound by the same north wind. When the north wind returns and signals Vianne to go on board on another journey, she submissively packs to go. Surprisingly, Vianne’s daughter Anouk has had enough of the missionary life and she forced her mother to break free from her troubled and ancient past. They reclaim themselves from a lifetime of wandering and they are free to choose their own destiny. Finally, Anouk and her mother settle permanently in rural town of France.

Catholic Church is one of the institution that was portrays in the film (Chocolat). Most of the community's activities were dominated by the local Catholic Church, the only religion in the rural town. The Christians in the town were guided by Catholic/Christianity doctrine regardless of individual’s own faith. For example, some residents who lost their husbands/wives were not allows to marriage again. It is unfortunate that some men/women have to spend the rest of their life as single. In other scenarios, anyone who doesn’t attend church or follow Catholic’s way of live was perceived as immoral provocateur. This kind of classification force the villagers to behave according to Christians law; if one fail to obey, then s/he must confess to the priest in order to forgive his/her sins. The ideology of obeying Catholic traditions was rooted in the town especially in the office of mayor.

The second institution in the film (Chocolat) that I selected was the mayor. The mayor of the town had played a critical rule in keeping villagers active in Catholic Church. As a matter of fact, the mayor Comte De Reynaud, implements moral authority for the entire town. He directed both Catholic Church and local villagers to do what he conceives as moral bases on his faith. Mayor Comte De Reynaud was the one who masterminded what to be read during church services. In addition, he is the one who classify individual as immoral provocateur such as in the case of Vianne Rocher and chocolate shop. On the other cases such as Josephine and her husband, Mayor Comte De Reynaud drags Josephine’s husband to church and asked him to confess to priest for his wrong doing. In my view, it is wrongful to force someone to confess to his/her sin involuntary. The mayor was determined to preserve the heritages and traditions Catholic Church and town as well.

According to Migliore, theology is a faith seeking understanding to provide a clear and comprehensive description of the Christians, translating Christian faith into terms that are intelligible to the wider culture, thinking about important issues from the perspective of Christian faith, and reflection of the praxis of Christian faith within an oppressed community. Faith asking questions has been deployed as task to seek understanding. Theology is a continuing search for the fullness of the truth of God made known in Jesus Christ.

The character in the film that I thought to be considered a theologian is the priest of Catholic Church. In fact, the priest of Catholic Church was poor theologian because his authority was manipulated by Mayor Comte De Reynaud, who acts as moral authority for the entire town. Comte De Reynaud directs all the affairs of Catholic Church in town. He directs the priest on what to say during church service and how to behave as priest. As result, the priest was not able to preach independently. I think the Catholic priest would have been a good theologian if he had an opportunity to employ his knowledge.

In the firm (Chocolat), the priest question Mayor for bringing in Josephine’s husband involuntarily to confess his sin. According to priest, confession should be conduct voluntarily at the individual’s interest without suppression. Hence, the Mayor insisted that Josephine’s husband come to confess voluntarily. I would conclude that Mayor is not theologian because he is resistance to anything that challenges Catholic traditions or norms. On the other hand, the priest was more tolerance but he was unable to express it. In other scenario when the priest practices his hip hop dancing skill; he challenges Catholic traditions because his philosophy was aim to translated Christian faith into terms that are intelligible to the wider culture. However, the Mayor views priest his action as immoral because his (the Mayor) philosophy thoughts were rooted in the old traditions. Eventually, the priest issues strong message at the end of film (Chocolat) calling for the miracle of Lord’s divine transformation. He state that, “true freedom comes in accepting others as they are, and allowing them the freedom to be all that God has created them to be. It is not who we exclude that counts, but who we include that makes all the difference”. Basically, the priest was asking the Christ followers to be more tolerance toward one another regardless of who they are. In fact, the priest had demonstrated the critical reflection on praxis within an oppressed community. It is essential to acknowledge freedom and justice rather than serving as a believer that justifies a given social order.

An Analysis of “The Wal-Mart Lawsuit against Debbie Shank”

An Analysis of “The Wal-Mart Lawsuit against Debbie Shank”


Do people really comprehend the legal status of subrogation, a circumstances in which an insurance company tries to recoup expenses for a claim it has paid out? Fewer years ago, auto collision had left a former Wal-Mart employee Debbie Shank permanently brain-damaged and in the wheelchair. Debbie Shank’s Health Care Insurance (Wal-Mart) had successfully paid out about $470,000 for Shank's medical expenses. Shortly after the auto accident, Shank family’s was awarded $1 million in a lawsuit against the truck company/driver. Less than $500,000 was deposit in a trust to cover Debbie Shank's long-term care in nursing home, after legal fees and related expenses were paid out. Unfortunately, Debbie Shank’s Health Care Insurance (Wal-Mart) who had paid for Shank's medical expenses, later sued for the same amount because the Wal-Mart's health plan policy entitle Corporation the right to recoup medical expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit from third party. Sadly, Debbie Shank lost lawsuit to Wal-Mart. In this essay, I will Use Galanter’s article, Why the “Haves” Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change to examine the Wal-Mart lawsuit against Debbie Shank in the view of parties as one-shotter/repeat player, the advantages/disadvantages of each party, the interests of each party in this lawsuit, and how the balance of power between Wal-Mart Corporation and Debbie Shank influence the outcome of litigation.

Galanter’s article clearly highlights ligation procedures in term of defining which party is one-shotter (OS) and which party is repeat player (RP). Parties are divided into those who have only occasional employ the judicial process (one-shotters) and those who are engaged in much similar litigation over time (repeat players). One-shotters are the criminal accused, divorce case, or an automobile accident. Repeat players, on the other hand, are insurance companies, landlords, finance company, etc. The Wal-Mart lawsuit against Debbie Shank is litigation between one-shotter (OS) and repeat player (RP). Debbie Shank is a one-shotter in this litigation due to the follow reasons; 1st Debbie Shank is a defendant who has only occasional recourse to the court. Debbie Shank has never had, never anticipate having, and never engage in similar litigation. 2nd Debbie Shank is an individual and her stakes in this lawsuit is higher in relative to the total worth. Debbie Shank is not representing any Corporation, but herself as an individual with higher interest in winning this lawsuit. According to Galanter, “An OS, on the hand, is a unit whose claims are too large (relative to his size) or too small (relative to the cost of remedies) to be managed routinely and rationally”. As a one-shotter, Debbie Shank’s claim is too large to be managed routinely and reasonably. The Wal-Mart lawsuit against Debbie Shank is an extraordinary case that deserves exploration of health plan policy and justification of legal laws to protect vulnerable citizens. Wal-Mart Corporation, on the other hand, is a repeat player who has been engaged in much similar litigation over time. The Corporation has had, anticipates having, and repeated the same litigation over time. As insurance company, the Corporation has had similar ligation in the past, anticipating similar ligation in the future, and will repeated similar ligation. The Wal-Mart Corporation is a larger unit and the stakes in its lawsuit against Debbie Shank are smaller in relative to total worth. The Corporation has invested and will continue to invest great amount of resources in this case for the sake of winning the lawsuit at all cost. This lawsuit is not all about the money the Corporation had paid for Debbie Shank’s medical expense, the lawsuit is all about pursuing the Corporation’s long term interest. Wal-Mart is determined to ensure that all the employees are endured to health plan policy and its clause, which entitles the Corporation the right to recoup medical expense if the employee collects damage from party. As a repeat player, Wal-Mart has great advantages in contrast to Debbie Shank (one-shotter).

Galanter’s article, why the “Haves” Come out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change; highlighted some advantage and disadvantage of one-shotter (OS) and repeat player (RP). Wal-Mart Corporation, as a repeat player, has greater advantaged over Debbie Shank the one-shotter. Wal-Mart (RP) has advantages in structuring transaction, specializing expertise, developing long-term strategy, playing for rules, bargaining credibility, investing in penetration. In Wal-Mart lawsuit against Debbie Shank, the Corporation has advantaged in transaction structure, because the Corporation has done it before and it has advance intelligence. One of the Wal-Mart's fundamental advantages lies in her ability to structure policies, reorganize transactions, as well as structuring the business entities/organizations that are used to effect particular transaction. Debbie Shank, on the other hand, has no ability to structure transaction because she is a former employee of Wal-Mart with no resources. As a successful Corporation, Wal-Mart has advantage in specializing expertise, accessing specialists, and developing a long-term strategy to maximize their profit over a long series of cases. Wal-Mart as repeat player has established and maintained bargaining credibility as a competitor. Debbie Shank has more difficulty in committing herself in bargaining because she has no bargaining reputation to sustain. Wal-Mart Corporation has ability to expend its resources in order to influence the creation of relevant rules by lobbying. As a Corporation, Wal-Mart has the resources to hire lobbying firm who will influence Politicians to adapt certain policies. Due to lack of resources and being a one-shotter, Debbie Shank is not capable to hire lobbying firm because Debbie Shank has never anticipates having or repeated similar litigation over time. Lastly, Wal-Mart Corporation has advantaged in the investment of penetration. The Corporation is able to invest in matching resources necessary to secure the penetration of rules favorable to its business.

In contrast, Debbie Shank has no advantages in Wal-Mart lawsuit due to lack of resources, funds, experiences, skills, etc. Debbie Shank as an individual has no advantages over a successful Wal-Mart, a Corporation who generates billions of dollars annually. Debbie Shank is incapable to structured transaction, specialized expertise, and generated wealth, developed long-term strategy, played for rules, bargained credibility, and invested in penetration. Being unable to invest in these kinds of resources has restrained Debbie Shank’s advantages in winning Wal-Mart lawsuit. According to Galanter’s article, Corporation like Wal-Mart is described as “haves” in terms of power, wealth, and status; while, an individual like Debbie Shank is described as “have-nots”. It is reasonable to say that those who have power and wealth have greater advantage over those who don’t have. In overall, Wal-Mart Corporation has greater advantages in its lawsuit against Debbie Shank.

As a matter fact, Wal-Mart Corporation is very interested in its lawsuit against Debbie Shank because the Corporation has advantages in this litigation. As a repeat player, the Corporation has done it before, has advance intelligence, and written the contract. The combination of wealth, power, and status has given Wal-Mart upper hand in this ligation. Having greater advantages in this case has encouraged Wal-Mart Corporation to defend its lawsuit against Debbie Shank, the defendant. Wal-Mart Corporation has upper hand in advance intelligence, wealth, expertise, contract, and access to specialist such as lawyers, lobby, or interest group. It is in the interest of Wal-Mart Corporation to maximize its profit through the implantation of contracts. Marc Galander, “For the RP, on the other hand, anything that will favorably influence the outcomes of future cases is a worthwhile result”. Clearly, Wal-Mart Corporation is very interested in its lawsuit against Debbie Shank because this case will influence the outcomes of future cases. Thus, Wal-Mart Corporation support anything that will favorably impact the outcomes of future litigation is worthwhile.

On the other hand, Debbie Shank is not interested in the Wal-Mart Corporation’s lawsuit because the defendant has no advantage in this ligation. To begin with, Debbie Shank doesn’t have advance intelligence, expertise, and access to specialist, money, and other resources to defend this lawsuit. Without resources, Debbie Shank’s chance of winning this ligation is very slim. Debbie Shank’s interest in this ligation is very low because she signed the Wal-Mart’s health plan policy, a legal contract which entitles Wal-Mart the right to recoup medical expense if the employee collects damage from party. According to CNN, “the Shanks didn’t notice in the fine print of Wal-Mart’s health plan policy that the company has the right to recoup medical expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit”. Clearly, the Wal-Mart’s health plan policy entitles the company the right to recoup Medical expense in Debbie Shank’s case because it is a legal contract. In addition, the balance of power between Wal-Mart Corporation and Debbie Shank has greater influence in the outcome of this lawsuit.

(4) How the balance of power between the parties impacted the outcome(s) of this lawsuit.

In Wal-Mart’s lawsuit against Debbie Shank, the Corporation has greater power in contrast to Debbie Shank. Wal-Mart as the world’s largest retail store has the power to draft the constitution and policies that will governor and protect the operation of Corporation. Wal-Mart (repeat player) has greater power over Debbie Shank (one-shotter) in term of resources and rules. Resources do play an important role in the outcome of ligation especially in Wal-Mart’s lawsuit against Debbie Shank. And Wal-Mart the repeat player has access to resources that are not available to Debbie Shank the one-shotter. Galanter states, “Not only would the RP get more talent to begin with, but he would on the whole get greater continuity, better record-keeping, more anticipatory or preventive work, more experience and specialized skill in pertinent areas, and more control over counsel” Wal-Mart has the funds to invest in preventive measure and specialize skill in pertinent areas, or lobby for particular policy to preserve the Corporation’s interest. This is something Debbie Shank (one-shotter) isn’t capable to achieve without resources. Having and not having do justify the balance of power between parties and it impacted the outcome of the lawsuit.

The nature of U.S. legal institutions, on the other hand, tent to increase the power of repeat player like Wal-Mart Corporation. “Most U.S. legal institutions are also characterized by overload that inevitably affects the balance of advantages and favors those with resources. Overload often leads to delay, which is time consuming and discounts the value--or likelihood--of recovery”. A lawsuit must have the resources to keep the case alive. However, the U.S. legal institutions which are viewed as a progressive method of dispute resolution often reinforce the power of the Corporation who draft the constitution of a contract. Contract has been used by Corporations as the mean to protect their interest. For example, Debbie Shank lost litigation to Wal-Mart because she had signed a the Wal-Mart’s health plan policy, a legal contract which gives Corporation the right to recoup medical expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit. This kind of policy demonstrates the balance of power between Wal-Mart (repeat player) and Debbie Shank (one-shotter).

In conclusion, Galanter’s article, Why the “Haves” Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change highlights significant procedures in U.S. legal institution. These litigation procedures stress to classify/identifying the differences between parties (plaintiff and defendant) in the follow terms. 1st the essay distinguish between of one-shotter/repeat player, the advantages/disadvantages of each party, the interests of the parties in lawsuit, and how the balance of power between one-shotter and repeat player influence the outcome of litigation. Debbie Shank as one-shotter have only occasional employ the judicial process; while Wal-Mart Corporation as repeat player has been engaged in the same litigation over time.

Title: Why the "Haves" Come out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change

Author(s): Marc Galanter

Source: Law & Society Review, Vol. 9, No. 1, Litigation and Dispute Processing: Part One (Autumn, 1974), pp. 95-160

Publisher(s): Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Law and Society Association

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3053023

Peter Singer, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”

Peter Singer, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”

Peter Singer’s article, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, highlights the need to prevent absolute poverty in developing countries. An estimate of one billion people live in “a condition of life characterized with malnutrition, illiteracy, disease, squalid surroundings, high infant mortality and low life expectancy” according to Wesley Bagby (pp. 29). As a victim of Sudan’s civil war and a former refugee, I totally understand what it means to be homeless and street child. The hardship endured by homeless and street children on a daily basis is unbelievable; a day without food to eat, a day without clean water to drink, a day without shelter, a day without cloth, a day without medical care, and a day without security. There is no doubt that a significant number of people are living under conditions of extreme poverty. According to Peter Singer, ‘‘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’’ (Ethics in practice, p. 573). Singer believes that prosperous people have a moral obligation to donate portion of their income to organizations meant to help those less fortunate children. I strongly support Peter Singer’s claim that there is a need to fight absolute poverty, but I don’t agree to Singer’s claim an individual should donate a large portion of their income.

In the New York Times Article “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, the author Peter Singer argues if bad things are happening and there is something we can do to prevent some of bad things from happening, then we are morally obligated to help. Peter Singer gives two hypothetical situations: The first hypothetical portray James, a former football player in Mexico, as human trafficker. James persuaded young women in South American to come to the United States and marriage a wealthy man. When James successful delivers the young women into the United States, he pocketed thousands of dollars as reward. After spending some of the money on a new television, new cars, new house, new iphone; James was told that these young women will be forced to hard labor and prostitution. As a consequence, James resolves to quit human trafficking. Supposedly, James continues to conduct human trafficking since trafficking is the only way to purchase luxury goods. James will be perceived as greedy or evil.

In the second hypothetical, Peter Singer portrays a similar scenario “to probe our intuitions about whether it is wrong to live well without giving substantial amounts of money to help needy people” [(The Singer Solution to World Poverty) in class, p. 2]. Deng has invested most of his savings in a valuable suit. One day, while Deng was passing by a lake, he saws a child drowning in the lake. Deng have two options; 1 risks his valuable suit and rescue the child or 2nd pretended that he didn’t see anything and preserve his valuable suit. Deng can only save the child or his valuable suit, but not both. Unfortunately, Deng chose to preserve his valuable suit and let the child drown in the lake. Deng will be perceived as evil too.

Overall, Peter Singer argues that there is no ethical distinction between human trafficker, Deng who chose not to sacrifice his valuable suit in order to save the life of child, and American who already has a TV and upgrades to luxury one while knowing the money could have been used to save the lives of children. The author believes that rich people should donate all of the money not needed for the basic requirements of life to organizations meant to help poor children. Falling to act contribute to human trafficking in South America. Of course, most of Americans would disagree with Peter Singer’s claim that there is ethical difference between participating in human trafficking and refusing to intervene in saving the life of child. In addition, there is a strong connection between luxury goods and the economy. In fact, there is a claim that American economic prosperity depends heavily on customers’ consumption. Without buyers, the production of luxury goods will decrease, and the decrease in production will lead to unemployment; thus, unemployment will eventually become poverty. Innovation in America is driven by demand of more luxury goods. Yes, there is a need to upgrades to more efficiency goods for safety purpose.

On the other hand, I supported Peter Singer’s argument that there is no ethical characteristic between human trafficker, someone who value luxuries over saving the life of child, and American who upgrades to more luxury while knowing the money could have been used to save the lives of child. Yes, Peter Singer is right to claim that we have morally obligated to choose between saving lives and upgrading for luxury goods. Do we really pay attention to result of our actions? Of course not, most of us fail realize that our actions are causing destruction around the world. It is unfortunate that majority of Americans are purchasing luxury goods that are not essential to the preservation of lives and health; while, majority of the world’s population lives on less then dollar a day. There is distinguishing between need and want. Need is something that is necessary for one to live a healthy life while want is something that one desired. Do we really need luxury goods or do we just want luxury goods? Of course, almost everyone would agree that we don’t need luxury goods, we just want luxury goods. Americans are purchasing luxury goods such as millions dollar automobiles, jewelries, homes, and countless luxury goods. For example, do we really need a ring that worth two million dollar in order to preserve lives and health? It is hard to justify that it is reasonable to purchase a ring that worth two million dollar; while, knowing that the money could be use to preserve live and health of poor people. It troublesome to acknowledge that the value of luxury goods is greater than the preservation of children lives. Saving human live is worthy more than luxury goods.

According to Peter Singer, ‘‘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” (Ethics in practice, p. 573). Poverty, famine, diseases, and lack of basic need are destroying lives of majority of people around the world and yet most of wealthy nations are not even aware of it. To alleviate absolute poverty, Peter Singer argue that wealthy people should donate portion of money to an organizations meant to help people who are less fortunate. He encourages Americans to supported charity organizations such as UNICEF or Oxfam America financially. Of course, we ought morally to prevent bad thing from happen, but to what extent? Majority of Americans will question Singer’s argument base on numerous reasons. Why should Americans intervene to alleviate poverty in foreign countries when poverty exists in their communities? Indeed, Americans has a plate full of problems to solve in their own backyard.

However, it is very important to acknowledge that we are morally obligated to help the needy people regardless of their nationality, ethnicity, gender, or geographical. According to Andrew Kuper, “today, any day, 30,000 children under the age of five will die from preventable illness and starvation. A further 163 million children who will survive this day are severely undernourished. Some 1.2 billion people will try to subsist on less than one dollar a day, while 2.4 billion will not have access to basic sanitation” (p. 107). There is no double that children are dying every day from preventable disease and starvation. It is inhumane to allow preventable illness and starvation to continue in the developing countries. As an advocator for humane society, I strongly supported Peter Singer’s claim, we have an obligation to aid those who suffer elsewhere in the world from dire poverty; hence, taking from the rich and giving it to the poor is not an ultimate solution to world poverty. I can’t claim that giving charity to poor nations will definitively end world poverty. However, it is important that wealthy nations intervene in poor nations to assists in developing economy, education, and agriculture infrastructure. Alleviating absolute poverty requires justice, stable government, food security, economy efficiency, and basic need such as education and health care. According to Pamela Couture, “professional economists who seek an end to poverty agree that poor countries must be helped to build social and material infrastructures: secure banking and trade systems, yes, but equally as important are schools, hospitals, transportation routes, and public assistance programs” (p. 191). Of course, alleviating poverty in poor countries require a huge investment in material infrastructures. There is a famous Chinese proverb which says, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime" (Hunger and Poverty in South Asia, p. 466). Surely, relying on humanitarian charity will not end poverty. There is a need to help less fortunate countries in developing their own economic, agriculture, and education infrastructure instead of giving foods and medicines. Why not teaching developing countries how to enhance their economic and agriculture productivity? Yes, I do agree that there is a need for affluent people in the core nations to help poor people in periphery nations in term of education enhancement, economy, and agriculture productivity.

Peter Singer breaks down his philosophy claim in dollars and cents. His formula is simple and plain; For an American a household bringing in $50,000 a year, donations to help the world's poor should be as close as possible to $20,000. The $30,000 required for necessities holds for higher incomes as well. So a household making $100,000 could cut a yearly check for $70,000. According to Brock and Moellendorf, “Peter Singer claimed that affluent people in the developed world are morally obligated to transfer large amounts of resources to poor people in the developing world” (P. 151). Singer believes that prosperous people should donate all of the money not needed for the basic requirements of life to an organizations meant to help poor. He argues that whatever money we are spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away. Indeed, majority of people will disagree with Peter Singer’s claim. This argument has a big downside because people work hard to obtain money and to simply give it away seems unrealistic. It seems unjust to justify that people should simply give away a high percentage of their income. Peter Singer has failed to consider the reasons why people go to work in first place. What is the engine behind workforce? People go to work in order to achieve their ultimate goal in lives, happiness. Happiness is an important virtue in life; we must fulfill our desires in order to be happy. Unlike Peter Singer, I don’t supports a claim that one should donate all money spends on luxuries and not necessities. There is a concept that luxury goods and not necessities make us happy. And if the money we spend on luxuries bring us happiness, than, it is essential to be happy in lives. However, I do believe each and every one have power to make a difference in developing countries. It doesn’t matter whether we donated one cent, hundreds, thousands, millions or even offering our time to do voluntary work; all contribution are counted and that is what makes the difference.

In conclusion, I strongly support Peter Singer’s claim that if it is in our power to prevent bad things from happening, we ought morally to act. Of course, there is no doubt that great numbers of people are living under extreme conditions of poverty. Peter Singer believes that rich has an obligation to aid those who are suffering elsewhere in the world from extreme poverty. In this paper I have accepted Singer’s claim that we have moral duty to aid the poor, but I have gone on to suggest that humanitarian aid is not an ultimate solution to world poverty. I do believe there is a need for affluent people in the core nations to help poor people in periphery nations in term of education enhancement, economy, and agriculture productivity. Lastly but not least, I disagree with Peter Singer’s believe that prosperous people should donate all of the money not needed for the basic requirements of life to an organizations meant to help poor. I believe we have moral duty to help the developing countries, but it is unjust to claim that prosperous people should donate all the money not needed for the basic requirement of life.

Citation

Bagby, Wesley Marvin. 1983. Contemporary international problems. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

LaFollette, Hugh. 1997. Ethics in practice: an anthology. Blackwell philosophy

anthologies, 3. Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell.

Kuper, Andrew. 2002. "More than Charity: Cosmopolitan Alternatives to the "Singer

Solution". Ethics & International Affairs. 16 (1): 107-120.

Couture, Pamela D. 2007. Child poverty: love, justice, and social responsibility. St. Louis,

Mo: Chalice Press.

Brock, Gillian and Moellendorf, Darrel. 2005. Current Debates in Global Justice. Netherlands:

Springer

Rorabacher, Albert. 2010. Hunger and Poverty in South Asia. India: Gyan Publishing House.