Interview

Me: So Shelby, do you think that Singer's solution to world poverty is too extreme?

Shelby: I think that what he said was really harsh, but true. I agree with what he said, and i think that people aren't donating even though they have the opprotunity to dontate. Singer's article is an effective way of getting people to donate. His point that he was trying to get across to the people was a very effective one because it makes you think about situations you could be in. Some of his examples were a little extreme, but he was only doing it to make sure he got his point across. Also, people only see what they want to see, so it takes a lot to get your point across because no one wants to think that they arent helping to save innocent children's lives. I don't think that by not donating, you are actually killing a child, but you're not helping either.

Me: Do you think that there are other ways to help save children's lives besides donating money?

Shelby: There are a lot of ways to help besides donating money, like donating your time and voulenteering.

Me: If you help the community by donating your time or voulenteering, do you think that you should still donate money like Singer says to do?

Shelby: I think that sometimes the other ways of helping are better than donating money. Just like the video we watched last english class about the water buffalo. It is a lot more rewarding for your self because you get to see the results and how you are affecting others. I think that if you spend your time voulenteering then you don't have to donate money. Actually, I don't think that anyone is obligated to donate, and that people should be doing it out if the kindness of their hearts. So, if you are voulenteering, you don't have to donate, but it's nice if you do.

Me: Do you think that you should donate all of your money that is not used for necessities, and not save or invest any of it for the future?

Shelby: I am kind of split on this question. In some ways, I think that you should, and in other ways, I think that you shouldn't. Everyone is unintentionally selfish, and will always want something for themselves. If people had a lot or were given a lot, they probably wouldnt give away what they had. You always want or need something for your self to make you feel happy and accomplished, but I think that you should donate because it could help a lot of people, and they would really appreciate it because it could even save their life. One thing I'm not sure about though, is that if you donate almost everything you have, it can put you into the same position as the people you are trying to help, which I don't think you should do.

Me: Why do you think that Kravinsky is so sad, even though he has given so much?

Shelby: I think that Kravinsky was depressed because he gave so much and that giving everything he had sucked the happiness out of him. I personally believe that he gave too much, and didn't keep enough for himself. I also think that it was his method of giving that made him unhappy. Shince he only gave money to charities, he wasn't really able to see the results of his giving. I think that part of giving is being able to see how it helps and affects others. This is the part that makes you feel the best, and most accomplished. Kravinsky was also probably depressed because giving those excessive amoutns of money ended up hurting his family, and ruined his relationship with his wife and kids. I think that he literally gave everything that he had, and didn't save anything for himself. It seems like he always gave more and more each time he gave, and he eventually sucked himself dry. Maybe, to be happy and reach moral extasy, he didnt need to give money. Maybe that's not what he really needed to do to reach that goal.

Me: Do you think that Kravinsky is living a morally decent life? Why or why not?

Shelby: It's hard to say that Kravinsky is living a morally decent life because morally decent can be seen in many different kinds of views. I think that Kravinsky probably wasn't living a morally decent life by his own standards because he wasn't very happy. Actually he was pretty depressed. I think that morally decent is based on your own opinions of what you think is right and wrong. What is morally decent to one person, may not be morally decent to another person. For example, the people who work in animal slaughter houses. Those people kill animals for food for themselves and other people. To someone else it might seem cruel, but to them its a necessity for life, its their job, and maybe the only way that they can make money. So for the question of weather Kravinsky was living a morally decent life, I think that you would have to know what exactly he believed in, and weather or not he was doing what he thought was the right or wrong thing to do. If he was doing what he thought was right, then I think that he was being morally decent.