The Samaritan’s dilemma occurs when giving charitable donations removes the incentive for the receiver to improve their own situation. When aid is given, the receiver initially has two options: they can use the aid to improve their situation, or they can trust that they will receive aid again and do nothing productive with the aid they receive. Good Samaritans evidently give charitable donations in hopes of the former, however we will see that this scenario does not necessarily play out in their favour (Coate 1995). The Samaritan’s dilemma often presents itself in the area of foreign aid, and there are certain measures the government can take to eliminate the uncertainty it causes. In this essay I will first discuss the significance of the …show more content…
First we return to Coate’s optimal transfer policy involving in-kind transfers of insurance. By definition, in-kind transfers from the government are goods and services given to the poor instead of money. This system removes the possibility that the poor will abuse the charity by using it irresponsibly. Thus, this is a very effective method of eliminating the uncertainty burden on the giver. If a charitable government gives a suffering country a donation in the form of a good or service instead of a monetary transfer, the country will be forced to use the charity for its intended purpose. Another solution proposed by Coate is for the government to simply require that the country take insurance measures if it wants to receive continuing donations in the future. Presumably the recipient country would present some sort of proof of insurance and the charitable government would continue to provide donations. Coate takes this method a step further and states that the charitable government can also subsidize insurance by offering monetary transfers conditional on the country taking insurance, such as natural disaster insurance. However, the in-kind transfers remain the failsafe measure since with insurance requisite for donation policy or subsidized insurance policy the country could take the insurance but that would not necessarily stop it from using the rest of the charitable money for other less productive projects (Coate 1995). The fundamental problem with the first two measures is that there is no approach the charitable government can take to punish the recipient government without hurting the poor in the recipient country. Even if there is a contract between the giver and the receiver stating that the quality of life of the poor must increase by a certain amount in a set time, there is nothing the giver can do if the contract is broken. If the giver ceases donations,
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.
response to the Singer. Cullity argues that Singer’s conclusion, that we ought to help others in need so long as this does not cause any significant damage to ourselves, is severely demanding, as it is essentially arguing that we are morally obligated to help everybody in the world. The only way in which we would be able to justify not helping somebody who needed our help would be if doing so would put the person helping at significant risk. Cullity argues in his paper that Singer’s argument is asking too much of people when it claims that donating to aid agencies is a moral obligation and that not doing so would be immoral. His main way of doing so is by rejecting the Severe Demand.
In this paper I will examine both Peter Singer’s and Onora O 'Neill 's positions on famine relief. I will argue that O’Neill’s position is more suitable than Singer’s extreme standpoint. First I will, present O’Neill’s argument. I will then present a possible counter-argument to one of my premises. Finally I will show how this counter-argument is fallacious and how O’Neill’s argument in fact goes through.
Hares takes on a Kantian Approach; a duty. He uses a concept that a fetus is not a “person” because it does not have the rights. He says that the characteristic and a duty to have a right are considered as “human beings”. Hare says that we don’t know whether the fetus would turn into a human adult or a horse (Luper and Brown, p. 585). He presents two principles: Pro-life and Pro-choice; life and liberty. If mothers terminate a pregnancy, then she is offending the principle of preserving life, and if a third-party stops the mother from an abortion, then they are defending against the mother’s pro-life and pro-choice decisions (Luper and Brown, p. 586). . The fetus should be considered as an “it” rather than a “person” However, Hares says that
... aid across the world. As we have established that we do have an obligation to redistribute globally in a cosmopolitan perspective, distributing wealth however we may need to rethink what the best assistance is. Amaryta Sen conveys that before sending aid to the third world state, we would need to fully understand the limitation of freedom in the country. Redistributing wealth to global countries requires it to be evaluated by the economic shortage that they are suffering and to see whether it will be efficient in the long run. The more effective ways to contribute would be to international relief agencies or NGO’s that would pursue international development projects to help those in poverty or the alternative option by Tom Campbell’s idea of a ‘Global humanitarian levy’ which suggests a more appropriate taxation on all citizens to collectively aid those in need.
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.
Peter Singer, in his influential essay “Famine, Affluence and Poverty”, argues that affluent people have the moral obligation to contribute to charity in order to save the poor from suffering; any spending on luxuries would be unjustified as long as it can be used to improve other’s lives. In developing his argument, Singer involves one crucial premise known as the Principle of Sacrifice—“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” . To show that such principle has the property to be held universal, Singer refers to a scenario in which a person witnesses a drowning child. Most people, by common sense, hold that the witness has the moral duty to rescue the child despite some potential costs. Since letting people die in poverty is no different from watching a child drowning without offering any help, Singer goes on and concludes that affluent people have the moral duty to keep donating to the poor until an increment of money makes no further contribution.
According to Ronald F. White, there are three moral theories that attempt to clear the gray area between good and bad behavior, and truth varies among individuals based on their beliefs (279). Hardin argues based on the teleological ethical theory, claiming that an action is immoral if the negative consequences outweigh the positive consequences (White 280). According to Hardin, rich nations should not assist poor nations because the financial disaster that it will impose upon the wealthy will outweigh the justice and help given to the poor (291). However, there is another moral theory that serves as a counterargument to Hardin’s approach. Deontological theorists could argue that aiding the poor is a moral law that should never be broken, no matter the consequences (White 281). Because Hardin’s argument is based solely on his beliefs and one moral theory, it loses practical validity as it can be argued against from many
The United States is one of the leading suppliers of Foreign Aid in the world, and even though the US gives billions, European countries give aid money to the same countries, this causes many areas of the Middle East, Africa, and Asia to be almost fully dependent on foreign aid. This means that without aid from other countries, they would not be able to support themselves at all. Foreign aid is meant to help countries that are struggling with civil unrest, disease, or natural disasters, it is not meant to help keep the country out of debt, but that is where more and more of the US and The EU’s foreign aid budget is going. The question is, does all this money actually go where it is intended? It should be going towards the government and to help the people, but in many cases, the countries government does not have the resources to properly track the flow of money. The countries in most cases have poor infrastructure and corrupt or oppressive leaders, not always at a national level, but in the towns and cities. So this means there is almost no way to oversee the flow of foreign aid through the country, all we can see is that their situations aren't getting any better and the countries are still impoverished. If this is the case, where are the millions of dollars going? Countries like Afghanistan and Iraq receive the most money from American foreign aid and European aid, yet they are still under oppressive governmental rule and there is still an extreme difference between the rich and poor. Garrett Harding’s theory of “Lifeboat Ethics” exemplifies how not giving aid to others will allow the strongest of society to thrive, while teaching the impoverished to help themselves. He believes that giving aid to poor countries will only make ...
First off, wow, just wow. I'm very unsure of how to react to this situation. The Samaritan law states if you see someone in trouble, you help. A person can be liable if they ignore someone in danger, understandable. This, however, opens a can of worms I can't wrap my brain around. On one hand, Van Horn did crash into a light pole and then caused permanent spinal to this woman, but she was just trying to help. Van Horn is not a medical professional and was just responding the best way they could have. I feel sympathy for Ms.Torti and what happened to her, but I wish this case was not continuing. This is a tragedy and it just sad on both sides.
Emergency situations can call for an erratic response to someone’s life in which a person is injured or one’s life is in danger. The decision to be a hero or to be saved must be made. Despite the scenario, high emotion may be involved for both the hero and the one being saved. The hero could make the scene worse or cause more injury to the one being save. Furthermore, the hero could be sued for negligence. Issues of being sued could play an impact when a person makes the decision whether to be the hero or remain a bystander. Consequently, the “Good Samaritan Law” benefit those who could be potentially be accused of negligence after giving emergency care. However, lay responders must comply to legal regulations
This statement leads me to my next point of Singer’s argument that being one of many to assist does not take away the responsibility that you have as an individual. He supports his viewpoint with a progressive scale of every person donating at least one percent of their income and taxpayers giving five percent of their income. If everyone in affluent countries donated with Singer’s proposed scale, they would raise $1.5 trillion dollars a year –which is eight times more than what poor countries aim for in hopes of improving health care, schooling, reducing death rates, living standards, and more. Even though Singer proposes the progressive scale for giving money to aid extreme poverty, he does not introduce any alternative methods to giving aid. Singer presented this point in the argument accurately, but is not strong enough to support the child-drowning example. In comparison to the child drowning, Singer’s proposal is weak because you cannot hold people accountable for not donating a percentage of their income; however, you can hold a person or group of people accountable for watching and not saving the child from
“No one would remember the Good Samaritan if he’d only had good intentions – he had money too.”
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.
In the Parable of the Good Samaritan a lawyers asks Jesus a question “Who is my neighbor”? Jesus then tells him who do pray upon and what does the law say and then the lawyer responds and says that you should love God with all of your heart and soul and with all of your strength and mind. Jesus tells him that is right and you answered the question correctly. Jesus explains to the lawyer that a man was going across Jerusalem to Jericho and the man got beat down by burglars and they left him alone completely exhausted and almost dead. A cleric came through the road and when he saw the man who got beat down he moved across the opposite side. When the Levite came and saw the man he also moved across the opposite side. Then lastly a Samaritan came to the