Through my revision process, I began realizing that there were things I simply just left out. While going through and rereading, I was able to add in missing information and fix my wording and thought process as I went through my text.

Original paragraph:

Effective altruists believe that humans have a duty to help each other in any way possible, which include physical labor or donating money. These confined moral beliefs don’t include the presence of art. Art does not play a substantial enough contribution to the wellness of others, in the eyes of the EA (Southan). It is easy to break down the thought process of an EA. Centrally, they “want to reduce suffering and increase lifespan and happiness…. nothing else matters” (Southan). Given this, there is a crucial need to find people who are more effective at fulfilling a position and can acquire different skill sets that greatly benefit each position. Then enters the role of replaceability, as Southan states, “The idea [behind replaceability] is that the only good that counts is what you accomplish over and above what the next person would have done in your place” (Southan).  There is a common concept that simply donating money every so often to a cause to help the suffering is enough. However, donations may fulfill a more so positive role for the donator than the recipient. Donating money is possibly one of the bare minimums of contributing to the greater good, as someone is most likely doing more, whether donating more or contributing time and effort, for a cause than the donator. This aforementioned go-getter is ultimately doing better at aiding in the overall well-being of others than the original donator is, making his position useless…. That is, in the eyes of the EA’s. The same ideals apply to creating artwork; if there is a person who truly produces awe-inspiring art that could be the most talented art in the world, there is no point of having other artists. EA’s would claim that all inferior artists are a waste of resources that could potentially be utilized for the betterment of the global population (Southan).

Revised paragraph:

Art has a variable definition; to some it is an extensive and complex part of their lives and to others it can seem immensely trivial. Effective altruists have confined moral beliefs that don’t include the presence of art. They seem to believe that humans have a civil duty to help each other in any way possible, including physical labor or donating money. Peter Singer, a world renowned philosopher, states a moral argument that questions the rationality behind possibly giving up some of your own free will in order to save another’s life. The argument goes as such: you are on your way somewhere and as you walk past a pond, you see a child who appears to be drowning. Do you save the child or keep on going, not paying any mind to the situation? In most rational people, the prominent answer is to, of course, jump in and save the child. Effective Altruists would agree with this very rational answer, as they are most concerned with the happiness and comfort of others in need. Art does not play a substantial enough contribution to the wellness of others, in the eyes of the EA (Southan). Their rationality could possibly be how could a piece of art have any effect on this situation? The person walking past the drowning child would not take a minute to paint a picture or write a script in order to save them. They would simply take action right then and there. It is easy to break down the thought process of an EA. Centrally, they would want to reduce suffering and increase lifespan and happiness- nothing else matters (Southan). Given this, there is a crucial need to find people who are more effective at fulfilling a position and can acquire different skill sets that greatly benefit each position. Then enters the role of replaceability, as Southan states, “The idea [behind replaceability] is that the only good that counts is what you accomplish over and above what the next person would have done in your place.”  There is a common concept that simply donating money every so often to a cause to help the suffering is enough. However, donations may fulfill a more so positive role for the donator than the recipient. Donating money is possibly one of the bare minimums of contributing to the greater good, as someone is most likely doing more, whether donating more or contributing actual time and effort, for the cause than the donator. This aforementioned go-getter is ultimately doing better at aiding in the overall well-being of others than the original donator is, making his position useless. The same ideals apply to creating artwork; if there is a person who truly produces awe-inspiring art that could be the most talented art in the world, there is no point of having other artists. EA’s would claim that all inferior artists are a waste of resources that could potentially be utilized for the betterment of the global population (Southan).

 

I felt as though my revised paragraph is exponentially better than my first. I added new information, beefed it up, made it hold contextual integrity, and gave it more meaning than it had previously.