Moral obligation to help

1924 Words4 Pages

Peter Singer said; “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it” (Famine, Affluence, and Morality). As human beings, we have a moral compulsion to help other people, despite the verity that they may be strangers, especially when whatever type of aid we may render can in no approach have a more significant consequence on our own life.

For instance, it was an extremely sunny day in Ghana, West Africa, and I had gone out to the well to fetch water. It was while carrying the bucket of water on my way back that I noticed my neighbor’s children fighting over the insufficient amount of food that they had to share. My family and I were not rich but from what I saw, I knew that we were better off than other people I knew. I carried the bucket of water inside the house and came back outside to call the two youngest children that were fighting over the last grain of food. I shared my food my food with them and though it was not sufficient for all, feeding the younger ones alone was better than not helping any one of them at all. There was only little that I could possibly do but by sharing, I had helped them in a great way, even if it was just for the time being.

“Small acts when multiplied by millions can transform the world” (Common Dreams). This quote by Howard Zinn can be interpreted by implying that as long as everyone tries within their reach to help every situation that they can, then the world shall be a better place. This means that small measures may not seem to be making a huge difference but when those actions are multiplied by or totaled to the actions being performed by all; then a huge and significant impac...

... middle of paper ...

...ter place. It should be recognized that the progress of a society solely does not depend on the prosperity or fortunate chances of just one individual; it is based entirely on the whole population. By seeing that we have a moral obligation to help human beings wherever they are, we are improving the living conditions for all.

Morality can be based on consciousness and various perspectives but morals, regardless of distinct cultures, have a core fundamental of comprehending what is right and wrong. By this, we are held to an obligation to assist those in need. This means that we should feel obligated to do whatever it is within our might to aid situations that need assistance.

Works Cited

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/01/28-23

http://www.dalailama.com/messages/world-peace/the-medicine-of-altruism

Singer, Peter. "“Famine, Affluence, and Morality”

Show More
Related

  • Peter Singer Moral Obligation

    1127 Words  | 3 Pages

    Peter Singer a philosopher and professor at Princeton University who wrote the essay titled “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, where he argues that wealthy people have a moral obligation to help provide to developing nation’s resources that would increase their standard of living and decrease death due to starvation, exposure, and preventable sicknesses. John Arthur’s essay argues that Singer says that all affluent people have a moral obligation to give their money to poor people to the extent that the wealthy person would be on the same level as the poor person, poor people have no positive right to our assistance, and wealthy people have a negative right to their property, which weighs against their obligation.

    Read More

  • Andrew Carnegie And Peter Singer

    1346 Words  | 3 Pages

    Singer’s belief that everyone should give away all excess wealth to eliminate as much suffering as possible conflicts with the idea of competition and, therefore, reduces the productivity of human civilization. Peter Singer, a professor of moral philosophy, stated in his essay “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” that it is everyone’s duty to participate in philanthropy since it is morally wrong to not help someone who is suffering. Singer thoroughly explained the details of the “duty” of philanthropy: “we ought to give until we reach the level of marginal utility - that is, the level at which, by giving more, I would cause as much suffering to myself or my dependents as I would relieve by my gift.” If this philosophy is followed, and the poor beneficiary experienced the same level of comfort as the wealthy benefactor, then what incentive would the beneficiary have for

    Read More

  • Reevaluating Charity: A Radical Approach

    870 Words  | 2 Pages

    According to Peter Singer, we as a society must adopt a more radical approach with regards to donating to charity and rejecting the common sense view. In the essay Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Singer argues that we have a strong moral obligation to give to charity, and to give more than we normally do. Critics against Singer have argued that being charitable is dependent on multiple factors and adopting a more revisionary approach to charity is more difficult than Singer suggests; we are not morally obliged to donate to charity to that extent. Throughout his essay, Singer argues that we must reject the common sense view of giving to charity. The common sense view of giving to charity is one that is supererogatory; it is not obligated for us as a society to give to charity, however, we should if we want to.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Peter Singer's Famine, Affluence And Morality

    1021 Words  | 3 Pages

    In Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence and Morality,” Singer makes three claims about moral duty; that avoidable suffering is bad, that it is our moral obligation to help others in need, and that we should help those in suffering regardless of their distance to us or if others are in the same position as we are to help. First, I will elaborate on Singer’s arguments for each of these positions. Next, I will discuss two objections to Singer’s position, one that he debates in his writings and another that I examine on my own, and Singer’s responses to those objections. Then I will examine why Singer’s rebuttals to the objections were successful.

    Read More

  • Peter Singer's Argument in Famine, Affluence and Morality

    1493 Words  | 3 Pages

    This paper explores Peter Singer’s argument, in Famine, Affluence, and Morality, that we have morally required obligations to those in need. The explanation of his argument and conclusion, if accepted, would dictate changes to our lifestyle as well as our conceptions of duty and charity, and would be particularly demanding of the affluent. In response to the central case presented by Singer, John Kekes offers his version, which he labels the and points out some objections. Revisions of the principle provide some response to the objections, but raise additional problems. Yet, in the end, the revisions provide support for Singer’s basic argument that, in some way, we ought to help those in need.

    Read More

  • Peter Singer's Argument On Moral Obligation

    480 Words  | 1 Pages

    I both agree and disagree with Peter Singer. While I believe that we do have a moral obligation to help others, I also believe we have a moral obligation to leave other people alone and let them get on with their lives.

    Read More

  • Peter Singer's Paper 'Famine, Affluence and Morality'

    1498 Words  | 3 Pages

    Singer continues by stating “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it”(Singer, Pg.231). Like his first statement, this one is easy to swallow. No moral code, save for maybe ethical egoism or nihilism, would attempt to refute either of his premises. His final conclusion is that if it is in our power to stop suffering and death from lack of the essentials, without sacrificing anything of comparable moral worth, we are morally obligated to do so. This essentially removes the current definition of charity, making giving money to famine relief, not a supererogatory act, but a moral duty of all people who have the ability to do so.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Peter Singer And Onora O Neill's Position On Famine Relief

    1016 Words  | 3 Pages

    In order to understand why O’Neill’s position is superior to Singer’s position on famine relief, I will present information on both sides. O’Neill gives a Kantian, duty-based explanation, that focuses on people 's intentions. One of the central claims of Kantian ethics is that one must never treat a person, either oneself or another, as mere

    Read More

  • Morality of Giving

    1069 Words  | 3 Pages

    How much money is one morally obligated to give to relief overseas? Many In people would say that although it is a good thing to do, one is not obligated to give anything. Other people would say that if a person has more than he needs, then he should donate a portion of what he has. Peter Singer, however, proposes a radically different view. His essay, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” focuses on the Bengal crisis in 1971 and claims that one is morally obligated to give as much as possible. His thesis supports the idea that “We ought to give until we reach the level of marginal utility – that is, the level at which, by giving more, I would cause as much suffering to myself or my dependents as I would relieve by my gift” (399). He says that one's obligation to give to people in need half-way around the world is just as strong as the obligation to give to one's neighbor in need. Even more than that, he says that one should keep giving until, by giving more, you would be in a worse position than the people one means to help. Singer's claim is so different than people's typical idea of morality that is it is easy to quickly dismiss it as being absurd. Saying that one should provide monetary relief to the point that you are in as bad a position as those receiving your aid seems to go against common sense. However, when the evidence he presents is considered, it is impossible not to wonder if he might be right.

    Read More

  • Beggars, Homeless and the Professional Panhandling Plague

    975 Words  | 2 Pages

    Most people feel that they should help the needy in some way or another. The problem is how to help them. This problem generally arises when there is a person sitting on the side of the road in battered clothes with a cardboard sign asking for some form of help, almost always in the form of money. Yet something makes the giver uneasy. What will they do with this money? Do they need this money? Will it really help them? The truth of the matter is, it won't. However, there are things that can be done to help the needy. Giving money to a reliable foundation will help the helpless, something that transferring money from a pocket to a man's tin can will never do.

    Read More

  • Famine Relief

    1822 Words  | 4 Pages

    In this paper, I will argue against two articles which were written against Singer’s view, and against helping the poor countries in general. I will argue against John Arthur’s article Famine Relief and the Ideal Moral Code (1974 ) ,and Garrett Hardin’s article Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor ( 1976); I will show that both articles are exaggerating the negative consequences of aiding the poor, as well as building them on false assumptions. Both Arthur and Hardin are promoting the self-interest without considering the rights of others, and without considering that giving for famine relief means giving life to many children.

    Read More

  • Summary Of Susan Wolf The Meanings Of Lives

    1345 Words  | 3 Pages

    A possible objection to my critique could be that “Although human beings may reserve the right to care about themselves it is egocentric, and not in the best interest for humanity.” The objection to my criticism could extend to even say that “By putting yourself interest ahead of others, you are indeed implying that you are the center of the universe or at least your own universe.” Yes, it is indeed the humane thing to do to put the best interest of others ahead of your own. But humans are not, and should not, forced to put the greater good ahead of their own life. This question is raised commonly in contemporary politics. In my opinion it is the individual’s choice if they so choose to donate time, money or any other resources to those in need. This decision should not be inflicted upon them. This ties back to Wolf’s original statement that “If you care about yourself you’re living as if you’re the center of the universe, which is false.” It is incongruous to believe that if you care about yourself you’re automatically implying that you are the center of the universe. Everyone who functions in society and is a normal human being, to a certain extent, cares about them self, which in my personal opinion is a good

    Read More

  • Ralph Nader: Utilitarianism And Rejuvenation

    1332 Words  | 3 Pages

    Ralph Nader, an American political activist and author of Lebanese origin, once said “When strangers start acting like neighbors... communities are reinvigorated.” Thus is the opinion of a Utilitarian, one who believes that one should act according to whatever yields the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. According to a Utilitarian, this quote describes the essence of our obligations to strangers, or people we don’t naturally care about. It says that we must treat strangers in the same way we would treat a neighbor, family member, friend, or anybody else we care about. By treating strangers this way, it promotes and creates a universal caring for the needy and can cause communities to be rejuvenated. For this

    Read More

  • Jeremy Bentham And John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism

    1022 Words  | 3 Pages

    Moreover, in most aspects of everyday life, a person will not be affecting large numbers of other people, and thus need not consider his or her actions in relation to the good of all, but only to the good of those involved. It is only the people who work in the public sphere and affect many other people who must think about public utility on a regular basis (Spark Notes,

    Read More

  • The Importance of Serving Others

    1183 Words  | 3 Pages

    If we open our lives and give service to those less fortunate than ourselves, we allow our hearts to receive immeasurable happiness. When we sacrifice our time to help someone in need, whether it is a great or small need, we become a part of their life and can help alleviate heavy burdens. Making time to help people in need creates opportunities for us to develop new and lasting relationships. Serving our fellowmen allows the best in each of us to shine through and we can become examples to our children.

    Read More

More about Moral obligation to help

Open Document