Continued Response, Questions, and A Water Buffalo movie

Yesterday in English class we continued discussion on the essay by Peter Singer, which I responded to in my earlier post. We discussed how Peter Singer used the elements of critical thinking to create his essay. Later we were asked to write down questions that we thought this essay stimulated. Just for reference, here is a link to the essay:
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/19990905.htm

The questions, as a reader, the essay The Singer Solution to World Poverty stimulated for me were:
1. "Is it right to ignore the problems of others while helping ourselves?"

2. "If you indirectly start, or allow, a chain of events to occur which lead to death, are you just as bad as a murderer?"

3. "What is a 'morally decent' life? Is the only way to live a 'morally decent' life to donate all of your extra money to the poor? If you don't donate, does that necessarily make you a terrible, terrible person?"

4a. "If one works or has worked very hard to earn a large income, is it right to force them to belittle their hard work? Has effort now become something to be criticized?"
4b. "If someone is born into a financially secure family, is it right to criticize them for it?"

5. "Is it possible to help the poor without financially bringing ourselves down to their level?"

*********************

For homework we were asked to watch an 8-minute movie and respond to it, comparing it to Peter Singer's essay. Here is a link to this movie:

http://www.thompsonjazz.com/movies/waterbuffalo/flash-hi.htm

My response:
Basic Comparisons-
Robert Thomson lives in China. The movie shows us how he donated a water buffalo to a poor Chinese family.
Peter Singer lives in America. His article shows, explains, and advises us on how we should solve world poverty.

Non-basic Comparisons-
Some noteworthy info is that according to the movie, a water buffalo would only cost $200 dollars and we see from the movie how much that would help a poor family of farmers. Unfortunately most families cannot afford a water buffalo, since $200 is around the amount of money that they earn in one year.

This ($200) is the same amount of money that Peter Singer said would save a single homeless child. The difference here is that Peter Singer is talking about giving money through an organization, which may lead to only 60-70% of donations actually going to the cause, maybe enough to save 1 child. Robert Thomson on the other hand donated the money directly, purchasing that which would be most helpful and donating it to a family who needed it most. A whole family! I think that the video really shows how much a donation can make a difference.
A further difference is that by donating directly Mr. Thomson was able to choose who received the gift, choosing the family that needed it the most. By donating through an organization, you probably are not sure who the money is going to go to. What if it goes to someone who doesn't deserve it?
But I don't think all this about donating directly is that relevant to us. For us it may just not be possible to do what Mr. Thomson did in his video. We would be forced to donate through an organization. So lets move on:

Something that Mr. Thomson's movie did that Mr. Singer's essay didn't was that the movie gave no implications that not donating money is comparable to murder. The movie did not give any implications that the purpose of hard-earned, or inherited, wealth is to be given away. In other words, the movie made no attempt to remove the "you earn what you work for" aspect of the more financially secure people. The essay, on the other hand, had all of that.

What I have said above has to do with the overall feeling-reaction relationship of both media. The essay on one hand accuses, accuses, accuses and then demands (See my response). It has an attitude of "donate or else you are a terrible person", and as such my and I would expect others' reactions to it were not so favorable. From reading this essay I felt almost no compelling force to donate any money to anyone at all. It instead spawns my questions 3, 4, and 5 which are written at the top of this post, and my unfavorable response.

The movie has a different attitude. It really shows us how much a donation can help. It makes no implication that hard work is something to be criticized. It explicitly shows us the results of donation, rather than hiding behind over exaggerated examples and crafty assumptions based on those examples. The movie lets us see the reactions of the impoverished family up close, as opposed to the "okay, this person is saved the end" of the essay. It has an attitude of "this is how much a donation of what is a relatively small amount of money to us wealthy Americans can make a huge difference in the lives of the impoverished, so please donate so that others who are not as fortunate as yourselves may be saved". In nearly every aspect, I had a favorable reaction to this movie. Unlike the essay, I really did feel something compelling me to go and donate money right on the spot (even though I lack the means to do so).

Another difference between the two is the matter of "how many". The essay was practically built around the idea of "Saving everyone". It is the idea of "there is always someone you can save with the money that you would have spent elsewhere, thus you should not buy anything or else you consider you own luxury over life". The movie on the other hand, only briefly mentioned the problem of how one family is only a drop in the ocean ("Almost everyone can use a water buffalo"). I think that the idea of "one family is better off now, but there are still more out there" is a more effective idea than "you must bend over backwards to help everyone" as a means to motivate people to donate money. One should do their best, but I think there is a line between willingly doing their best and being forced to do more than it. I think past that line it in a sense is no longer giving.