In the two articles about the forced child labor, there alot of differences between the two authors. Chitra Divakaruni's opinion is that while "child labor is a terrible thing, especially those... who... have no way to protect themselves from the abuse", it would also be a terrible thing to for America to pass the bill to try and stop child labor, as the kids would be without "food or clothing or shelter" when living free. Peter Singer's opinion is that Americans should do everything they can to help those unfortunate kids, saying that it is "very wrong [to not] send money to one of the organizations" of UNICEF or Oxfam America. I don't really have a reader bias, as I have never really thought about these children's situations that much.
I ultimately agree more with Divakaruni's argument about how freeing the children would leave them in even worse conditions, like how they might "turn to the streets, to [survive] through thievery and violence and begging and prostitution". I can relate to this opinion better because it is a much more realistic argument, as opposed to Singer's. In his argument, he basically is trying to persuade the audience into donating money to help the children. When thought about from my perspective, it is just unrealistic to send a large amount of money to children that I have never even met. I am not even guaranteed that money is actually sent to the right fund. While he does add in good examples of what people can easily do to give money, I feel that he is just trying to persuade, and from the looks of it, unaffectively to certain people, as not everyone has the same beliefs as him. So, Divakaruni's argument was much more effective to me than Singer's.
No comments:
Post a Comment