Rhetorical Analysis On Poverty

In Singer’s paper, he argues that we are all obligated to help children in poverty. He explains how we should donate the money that we use on unnecessary items. To back up his argument, he uses two examples. In the first example, Singer explains a scene from the Brazilian film Central Station. The scene involves a retired school teacher who delivers a 9 year old boy for $1000, which she uses to buy a new TV. Once she learns that the boy will be killed for his organs, she decides to go back for the boy. Singer explains how her selling the boy for $1000 and buying a new tv is no different than Americans upgrading to a better TV instead of donating money to a certain charity. The author also uses the example with Bob and his Bugatti. In this narrative,
He starts off his argument by distinguishing the difference between starvation and murder. When you murder someone, you are the one causing their death. With starvation, you are not the one causing their death. Because of this, you are not responsible for those who are starving. Narveson also discusses the difference between justice and charity. Justice is something that is enforced, while charity is something that comes from the heart and isn’t compelled. The author does explain that even though we are not obligated to help those in poverty, we do have a minimum duty of charity in situations such as a natural disaster. He also explains the idea of mutual aid. It is the idea of “scratch my back and i’ll scratch yours.” We have the right to help others if we feel the need to, and the other party may return the favor. However, people do not count equally in the sense that we shouldn’t put the needs of a stranger before the needs of someone we care about. Narveson ends his argument by explaining how we are not obligated to spend our money to help those in poverty, but if we feel the need to, we can give to charity and spend our money on things we