Chitra Divakaruni and Peter Singer addressed the same issue: poverty. In their articles, however, they each voiced very different opinions. Both Divakaruni, the author of "Live Free and Starve"and Singer, author of "The Singer Solution to World Poverty", believe that poverty in Third World countries is unfair and definitely bad. Divakaruni writes her article in response to the House passing a bill prohibiting the import of goods from factories that used indentured or forced child labor in order to make the goods. The passing of this bill would "lead to the unemployment of almost a million children."So then where would these children go? Many of these children would go back onto the streets, begging for food and money as well as stealing for food regardless of the grave consequences, fighting for their lives. On the other hand, children who are forced to work or sold by their parents are paid by these factories. Being paid, these children are able to attain food in order to survive, rather than stealing. These children, condemned to child labor, are put to work in "dark, ill-ventilated rooms" but isn't that better than laying on the street begging, waiting for the next opportunity to steal your next bite of food? This is the point that Divakaruni brings up in her essay. In her perspective, she believes that bills working to prevent child labor in Third World countries are not benefiting "unless it goes hand in hand with programs that will offer a new life to these newly released children." In summary, Divakaruni argues that in attempting to help these people out of poverty, we could actually be harming these people rather than helping them; therefore, the United States should not interfere with this unless it is willing to take responsibility for what it may lead to. Singer voices a very different opinion in his article. This is evident starting towards the end of his introductory example about Dora and the nine-year-old boy. Singer believes that every single person in the United States should do everything possible in order to help these people who are suffering from poverty. He argues that “the average family in the United States spends almost one third of its income on things that are [not necessary] to them.” This money could be used to help those who really need it, those living in poverty in Third World countries. Throughout his article, Singer presents the reader with several articles with the purpose being to persuade them to help these people in every way possible. He uses his example of Dora and the nine-year-old boy to get the reader thinking. Dora had a chance to help this boy, just as we have a chance to help many children. He continues with this theme as he moves into his next reference: a paraphrased version of Peter Unger’s example about Bob and his Bugatti. In this example, the protagonist is also faced with the problem of making a decision: help a child or save his own Bulgatti from an incoming runaway train. These examples both have the purpose to persuade.
These are two very extreme opinions. I feel that it is unreasonable for one author (Divakaruni) to ask that Americans not support or try to do anything at all in order to help these people, but it is also unreasonable for Singer to ask that EVERYONE help the cause. Of course, there should be some help provided to them in appropriate manners. I come from a Third World country, and I am sad to say that I have seen poverty with eyes. It is a scary sight. These people will do anything for money and for food, everything to survive. Jobs are essential to them, even if not worth much to others. If they do have jobs, even children, these should not be taken away from them. It is what they have in order to survive. However, the situation should not be left alone. A lot of people are too weak or don’t know how to properly work or maintain a job. Help should be provided to these people in appropriate manners.