In Narveson’s “Feeding the Hungry”, Narveson argues against Singer’s utilitarianism’s perspective on how people should give any surplus money received to those less fortunate. Narveson discusses when it is an obligation to give, and when it is virtuous to give to those starving. First, Narveson’s only condition for helping hungry people is if you are the reason for them being hungry in the first place. For instance, if a mother takes away her son’s dinner as punishment, it would be the mother’s duty to feed him because she was the cause of his hunger. Narveson mentions there is two regulations that are to be applied if one seeks justice. One being to right all the wrongs committed and second being not to disrupts others liberties. In this scenario, the mother would have to feed her child to right her wrong and create another form of punishment for her son. Ultimately, Narveson thinks it is an obligation to help …show more content…
Narveson’s view is more plausible than Singer’s argument because not everyone who read’s Singer’s argument is going to be convinced out of guilt or sense of obligation. Narveson acknowledges the fact that not everyone is going to give their generated surplus to others who needs it, instead he displays how justice should be defined in a more realistic approach. More people are likely to right their wrongs and avoid interrupting other people’s liberties versus giving all their surplus to people across seas. Giving out of charity in my opinion is far better than giving to other’s out of force because it comes out from someone’s good heart. If people gives out of being forced then, you have someone who is bitter giving the money and another person who feels guilty because their riding someone of their wealth. Instead Narveson choose to create a platform where people choose to voluntarily give and both parties are
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.
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
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.
It is widely believed that charity is voluntary, a supererogatory action, while a duty is an obligatory action. Singer shares this view, but there are reason to think that he should not. Singer’s principle seems to imply that it should not be considered a voluntary action to create change and help those in need. And, not only does it only suggest that we should change the way we think, but it indicates that we should do everything that we can to minimize the suffering because it is our moral
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.
Peter Singer's paper “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”has made a drastic impact on modern applied ethics. The simple nature of the paper makes for an easy read, yet the point clearly set out by Singer is at the end with the targeted audience's popular beliefs. Although most will object to Singer's idea by throwing away a basic principle of most moral theories, I wish to deny Singer's solution by showing that the ability to apply Singer's conclusion is not reasonable and does not address the problem's core. Singer starts with the assumption that suffering and death from lack of the essentials of food, water, shelter, and proper medical assistance are bad. I find no problem with accepting this assumption, as it is consistent with most widely accepted moral theories.
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
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.
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.
But another very large portion of individuals like Peter Singer who also use the utilitarian way of thinking arrive at the conclusion that we should alleviate world hunger because it would increase the aggregate happiness in the world(866). Peter Singer uses the drowning child analogy to justify his position. He argues that if a person sees a child that’s drawing, and that person is capable of saving the child, that person is obligated to do so(866). In this situation the outcome is that the child is obviously happy that someone saved him, the person who saved the child is slightly less happy because his clothes were ruined, but nevertheless both are alive and well. Singer goes on to explain that we should apply this sort of thinking when it comes to world hunger, He says that if our situation allows us to help those in need, we are obligated to do so.(866) Singer and other individuals with the same understanding of the situation are basing their argument on the principle of utility, which essentially says that our actions should produce the greatest good for the greatest number (Mill, 752). The principle of utility is the only thing that matters when it comes to Utilitarianism, an action is right if it ends
Singer’s argument may have swayed many people to donate their dispensable income to children in need despite the fact that it has many fundamental flaws. He argues that we should give away the majority of our earnings to charity. Since Singer wants the reader to donate such a large amount of money, the readers are given no choice but to contribute nothing whatsoever. His solution is not realistic and does not take into account the long-term financial impact this type of donation contribution system would have on a country’s economy.
In this piece he makes it clear that nearly everyone has the ability to make a difference is others lives. dings”. Narveson, unlike Singer, thinks that our voluntary choices about giving are morally permissible, whether we choose to give or not. If you choose to sacrifice your luxuries for charity, then that’s fine (morally speaking), as long as you haven’t neglected your obligations with your family. In “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, the author Peter Singer argues that there is no reason why Americans don’t donate money to the needy when they can afford countless of luxury that are not essential to the preservation of their lives and health. In the case that you choose not to sacrifice for charity, then that’s fine too. As per Narveson 's position it’s up to us to help or feeding the hungry and whatever we decide is correct too. What Narveson does argue is that it would be wrong for others to force us to give, say, by taxing us and giving our money to charity. This claim does not contradict anything that Singer says in “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”. Nowhere in that article does Singer say that people should be forced to give. But for a utilitarian, such as Singer, there is no reason in principle why it would be wrong to force people to give. If the policy of forcing people to give maximizes utility, then it is ipso facto the right policy. On the other hand Narveson makes a distinction between
The mother-son case illustrates that there are more factors in play than just the two that Thomson presents in her thesis. Thomson’s conditions by themselves cannot explain every situation. The relationship between the people involved can also affect whether a decision is morally permissible or not. If that relationship entails that one person is emotionally bound and ethically responsible for the security and well-being of the other, the first cannot knowingly contribute to the death of the second. Thomson’s thesis must be modified to include this condition as well.
Peter Singer practices utilitarianism, he believes the consequence of an action matters more than the reason behind the action. Singer is trying to convince his audience to donate their money to end world poverty. He believes it is moral to give as much money as the person can give, allowing them to purchase just enough for them to live on, and this will be the right action to take. Singer is aiming toward the United States to contribute more to charity. Singer does not consider specific aspects that do not support his argument and causes his argument to not list specific aspects of his belief. Singer’s argument is not a good argument because he does not consider the ramifications of people donating their surplus of money would do to the economy; is it our duty to feed the poor; and that our moral intuitions are not consequentialist at all when it concerns what our rescue duties entail.