SUS1501
ASSIGNMENT 5
2022
, Assignment 5 – Is this OK?
I think that we should individually strive to eliminate the problem of
poverty. Now this is not a question of saving the lives of people, as the last
assignment suggested, this is a case of attempting to eliminate the
weighting effects of poverty & attempt to improve the standard of living
for the 4 billion people who live in poverty.
During my research, I found that the most expensive shoes are
$3,000,000.00 and, the link to the picture that is attached to our
assignment was not available, but for the sake of this assignment I will
assume the shoes mentioned the assignment to be true.
If we had to look at this scenario in terms of the fairest distribution of stuff
per utilitarian, off the top of my head I would not be able to conclude that
the total net benefits to the population. I will elaborate:
Shoes have utilitarian attributes, as they protect your feet, and there are
certain shoes enhance your performance. Athletic shoes can improve your
posture when running. But the shoes in question are hedonic, they look
uncomfortable, and I see no practical reason for their existence.
The utilitarian ethics philosopher, Peter Singer, stated, ‘The World
Bank defines those who are in extreme poverty to have a purchasing
power of $1.25 U.S. per day.’ He then further explained that you could
save lives of people in poverty by using the money it would cost to buy a
pair of shoes. Peter Singer assumes them to be anywhere between $300
to $1,000. Mr. Singer didn’t state how many lives would be saved with +-
$1000 U.S. But just imagine how many lives could be saved, if the person
who would be in the financial position to purchase the $1.97 Billion shoes
invested that money towards assisting the people in poverty.
If we move over to the subject of common intuitions, the pendulum will
swing to the other side, my thoughts regarding this scenario change
completely.
Who is deserving?
I think that if someone can afford those shoes then they are deserving of
them! Just as the example in our lecture notes state, ‘If Bill Gates is smart
and worked exceedingly hard. He deserves his money.’
Is it a need?
I touched on this earlier on in my assignment, shoes are supposed to
protect your feet, but the shoes in question, do not look comfortable, and
may cause more damage. (i.e. Twisting an ankle because of a minor fall or
blisters) I do not think that anyone would need those shoes, except maybe
an artist so that he could paint & sell the picture.
ASSIGNMENT 5
2022
, Assignment 5 – Is this OK?
I think that we should individually strive to eliminate the problem of
poverty. Now this is not a question of saving the lives of people, as the last
assignment suggested, this is a case of attempting to eliminate the
weighting effects of poverty & attempt to improve the standard of living
for the 4 billion people who live in poverty.
During my research, I found that the most expensive shoes are
$3,000,000.00 and, the link to the picture that is attached to our
assignment was not available, but for the sake of this assignment I will
assume the shoes mentioned the assignment to be true.
If we had to look at this scenario in terms of the fairest distribution of stuff
per utilitarian, off the top of my head I would not be able to conclude that
the total net benefits to the population. I will elaborate:
Shoes have utilitarian attributes, as they protect your feet, and there are
certain shoes enhance your performance. Athletic shoes can improve your
posture when running. But the shoes in question are hedonic, they look
uncomfortable, and I see no practical reason for their existence.
The utilitarian ethics philosopher, Peter Singer, stated, ‘The World
Bank defines those who are in extreme poverty to have a purchasing
power of $1.25 U.S. per day.’ He then further explained that you could
save lives of people in poverty by using the money it would cost to buy a
pair of shoes. Peter Singer assumes them to be anywhere between $300
to $1,000. Mr. Singer didn’t state how many lives would be saved with +-
$1000 U.S. But just imagine how many lives could be saved, if the person
who would be in the financial position to purchase the $1.97 Billion shoes
invested that money towards assisting the people in poverty.
If we move over to the subject of common intuitions, the pendulum will
swing to the other side, my thoughts regarding this scenario change
completely.
Who is deserving?
I think that if someone can afford those shoes then they are deserving of
them! Just as the example in our lecture notes state, ‘If Bill Gates is smart
and worked exceedingly hard. He deserves his money.’
Is it a need?
I touched on this earlier on in my assignment, shoes are supposed to
protect your feet, but the shoes in question, do not look comfortable, and
may cause more damage. (i.e. Twisting an ankle because of a minor fall or
blisters) I do not think that anyone would need those shoes, except maybe
an artist so that he could paint & sell the picture.
