The Role of the Individual in Society

Wheeling through the throes of life and all its obstacles, it is not uncommon to ask oneself, "What exactly is the purpose of existence?" Although one may never know the answer to this age-old question, one may come to a semi-conclusion about one's purpose for living. Whether one finds solace in practicing good morale, finding livelihood simply from making mistakes and accomplishments through experience, or carrying out the supposed "will" of some higher power, life on earth will be questioned and challenged until the end of time. Peter Singer, Bertrand Russell, and John Betjeman assess and propose duties they believe were intended to be performed during life.

Singer's argument concerning one's income being spent on superfluous items and luxuries that are truly unnecessary, versus being sent to philanthropic organizations certainly does cause one to question where his or her money is going, and whether or not the selfish expenses are really worth the investment. Aside from plausible statistics, Singer uses passionate language to induce guilt on his readers, which can be seen, to some extent, as manipulative; however, this is a very effective method of persuasion. Unfortunately, many will find this approach to be rather condescending, authoritative, and domineering, which may cause one to disregard his argument almost entirely. After reading his work, one may feel guilty for a few moments, but will most likely return to their daily tasks, unaffected by Singer's effort to turn society's attention to those in need.

By bringing to light the similarities and differences between the good life and the happy life, Russell proposes a valid argument. That is to say that, whether or not one agrees with his statement concerning the drowning child, and one's impulse to save the child and bring aid or because one may believe this virtuous act will bring one virtue, it cannot be denied that this statement is at least somewhat true. It is also true that one cannot make others happy until one is content with one's own existence, and vice versa. Russell is simply suggesting that one must live to fulfill one's own happiness, rather than living solely to ensure the happiness of others. However, it is a possible and frequent occurrence for one to live the stereotypical "good life" and still be completely miserable. That being sad, it is also possible for one to live in abject poverty, or other dismal settings, and in spite of these situations, are still able to find contentment with their existence. One may infer that all of these instances depend on perspective.

The satirist, approaching the issue in a method that is worlds away from those of his running mates, is in fact very effective in presenting