My first reaction to what we read was half incredulity, half impressed. I was thinking, "How could someone do something so enormous on the say of a fourteen year old girl???". However, the farther I read into this, the more I was impressed by what they were doing. It's a pretty audacious idea, to give up half of what you have (they had an elevator!!!).
I think that the point of the story here is that we really don't need most of what we have, and that if we get past our materialism, we realize it would really not be to hard to give it up.
This story actually does change my views on Peter Singer's arguements, but only a bit. It makes me think that the whole idea of giving up a majority of what you have is possible, but something that's keeping me from totally supporting the view is that these people had a 6,500 square foot house. To move into a house that is 3,250 square feet does not seem like it would be uncomfortable, or much a trial. That is still a pretty dang big house for four people. I do think that what they are doing is pretty awesome, and in line with what Peter Singer was trying to get across as his point.
I would consider something like it. I have three younger brothers that would probably faint at the idea of giving up their precious toys, but I do recognize that I spend a lot of frivolous money. I go shopping, I get coffees (a lot), I go out to eat with friends, and etc. I think that it would not be much a hardship for me to give up all of these things, and maybe throw in that I won't make unecessary car trips to save on gas, and then put that money towards a charity that I think is a good cause. I already put half of each paycheck into savings, which proves that I don't really need it (or really much of my paycheck at all) to get by. This is most likely because I still live with my parents. I would do it if their was a cause I felt strongly enough about.
I think that the point of the story here is that we really don't need most of what we have, and that if we get past our materialism, we realize it would really not be to hard to give it up.
This story actually does change my views on Peter Singer's arguements, but only a bit. It makes me think that the whole idea of giving up a majority of what you have is possible, but something that's keeping me from totally supporting the view is that these people had a 6,500 square foot house. To move into a house that is 3,250 square feet does not seem like it would be uncomfortable, or much a trial. That is still a pretty dang big house for four people. I do think that what they are doing is pretty awesome, and in line with what Peter Singer was trying to get across as his point.
I would consider something like it. I have three younger brothers that would probably faint at the idea of giving up their precious toys, but I do recognize that I spend a lot of frivolous money. I go shopping, I get coffees (a lot), I go out to eat with friends, and etc. I think that it would not be much a hardship for me to give up all of these things, and maybe throw in that I won't make unecessary car trips to save on gas, and then put that money towards a charity that I think is a good cause. I already put half of each paycheck into savings, which proves that I don't really need it (or really much of my paycheck at all) to get by. This is most likely because I still live with my parents. I would do it if their was a cause I felt strongly enough about.
RSS Feed