Srinivasan main point in her essay is about why normal people cannot think as the utilitarian and effective altruism. Normal people views are different when it come to helping others and their family. Most of the human beings are willing to be there for their close ones then strangers and the reason is our attachment as Srinivasan stated in her essay. Furthermore, The example Srinivasan gave about spending time by consoling a bereaved friend. We will choose to spend the time with the friend because that’s someone close to us and not because we already met our do-gooding quota. (p.8). The utilitarian will say you can spend time with your friend as long as you are doing some sufficient good elsewhere and same goes for the effect altruist,…show more content… The time spent with the friend could have been used for earning money and then donate the money to charities that are in need. My objection to the above statement of donating to the charity on behave of Srinivasan. If we earn and donate that money to some charities that we have not much knowledge but for the sake of morality. How are we supposed to know where the money is going in such a cruel world nowadays where people do anything for their own benefits. My point here is if the money donating goes to a charity that gives funds to the government and the government is funding Legal Aid. Recently, in the news, there was this case about an Iraqi couple who has no children that came to Canada 5 years ago and did not work while taking full advantages of our taxes. They want to divorce and does not have any money to pay the lawyers. The legal Aid which is funded by the government and charities are paying for their case. How can we donate for people that can physically work but not chose to? They are having their happiness by not going through anything, yet we work hard and
