This monster, http://unc.edu/~ujanel/ , has been inflicting antiamericanism on college students via what apparently passes for philosophy or ethics for decades. His willful ignorance to the self evident principle “my money is mine” reveals the core on the “man”
“[the wealthy should give away the majority of their money to the poor and live a spartan lifestyle]”
” Objection 3: My money is mine. I earned it (let’s suppose<2>), legally and honestly and through hard work. So although it would be good and praiseworthy of me to give lots of it to the starving,<3> it would be above and beyond the call of duty. In fact, that’s what’s distinctively good about it: I would be doing more than I am obligated to do. From which it follows that I’m not obligated to do it.
Reply: So, you wouldn’t be obligated to save a drowning child if doing so would cost you $15 of your legally etc. hard-earned money for dry cleaning? There may be some very strict sense in which you are not so obligated, but if you did not save the child at the cost of a dry cleaning bill, you’d be a monster; it would be very wrong to let the child drown, not just a lack of philanthropy.
Rejoinder: All right, but it’s a long way from $15 to the huge cut in lifestyle that Singer is demanding. How can we determine that alleged boundary between obligation and philanthropy?”
I was unable to find a link to his tax return showing his give beyond hurting principle.
not surprising he’s as hypocritical as he is feckless