property system ought not to be destroyed. Gauthier claims Hegel’s charge for Categorical Imperative is it presupposes the rightness or wrongness of particular actions or practices, ‘anything specific can be made into a duty’ (Hegel Philosophy of Right 438) Gauthier points out in response to Kantian critics that what is critically at issue is whether or not an agent can simultaneously will her maxim and its universalization (Kant 1785:422). It is when the agent who would steal a deposit attempts such a willing that a contradiction seems to arise. A practice such as charity toward the poor, though apparently moral when engaged in by particular individuals or groups of individuals, will in fact prove to be immoral when thought of as universal. Hegel argues: The maxim, ‘help the poor’, expresses the supersession of the specific thing, poverty. The maxim, ‘help the poor’, tested by being evaluated into a principle of universal legislation, will prove to be false because it annihilates itself…. either they …show more content…
When we read Hegel’s criticism we should therefore not overlook the fact that Hegel integrates Kant’s principle of autonomy into his own thinking. Hegel by no means rejects the view that ‘duty ought to be done for duty’s sake.’ In his Rechtsphilosophie, Hegel’s complaint is that Kant’s thinking ‘clings to a mere moral [Moralität] point of view’ and therefore cannot deduce a determinate content that could instantiate the concrete duties of ethical life [Sittlichkeit]. In other words, one cannot simply will ‘duty for duty’s sake,’ one must somehow be able to will something in particular as
In the article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer argues that our conceptions on moral belief need to change. Specifically, He argues that giving to famine relief is not optional but a moral duty and failing to contribute money is immoral. As Singer puts it, “The way people in affluent countries react ... cannot be justified; indeed the whole way we look at moral issues-our moral conceptual scheme-needs to be altered and with it, the way of life that has come to be taken for granted in our society”(135). In other words Singer believes that unless you can find something wrong with the following argument you will have to drastically change your lifestyle and how you spend your money. Although some people might believe that his conclusion is too radical, Singer insists that it is the logical result of his argument. In sum, his view is that all affluent people should give much more to famine relief.
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.
In sections 190-193 of Georg Wilhelm Fredrich Hegel’s Phenomenology of Sprit, Hegel looks into the relationship between the lord and the bondsman. In this examination of the relationship, Hegel makes the move to find out what both the lord and bondsman offer to each other in terms of existence and or identity. The formulation that Hegel made in the selected sections is that the bondsman had more to gain in terms of intellectual growth than his lord who becomes intellectually dormant due to the bondsman acting in the likeness of his lord.
Immanuel Kant is a popular modern day philosopher. He was a modest and humble man of his time. He never left his hometown, never married and never strayed from his schedule. Kant may come off as boring, while he was an introvert but he had a great amount to offer. His thoughts and concepts from the 1700s are still observed today. His most recognized work is from the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Here Kant expresses his idea of ‘The Good Will’ and the ‘Categorical Imperative’.
Hunger and poverty will always exist. Many needy nations are stuck in a black hole, in which, there is no light at the end of the tunnel. This situation could be fixed, if the poor nations had a little help or assistance. Is it morally good for the better off nations to help or support those who are in need? Who benefits from this sponsorship in the long run? Poverty-stricken nations could seek relief if the silk-stocking nations aid in supplying goods. Many of the moneyed nations are torn between helping or not those who are less fortunate. Jonathan Swift and Garrett Hardin have two very different opinions on whether to aid those who were not born into riches. Swift uses a satire for the low-income nations of eating and using offspring
In his famous writing, “The Leviathan”, Thomas Hobbes explains that the natural condition of mankind is when a society lives together without the rule of a common authority or power; this creates a “dog-eat-dog” world in which the citizens live in a perpetual state of utter chaos and fear. The fears experienced by the citizens are not only of the unequal distribution of the power of others, but also fear of the loss of their own power. In Hobbes’ state of nature there is complete liberty for society in the idea that each member may do whatever he or she pleases without having to worry about infringing upon the rights of the rest of society; in other words, one is allowed to do whatever necessary to pursue their own happiness. Ho...
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.
...th what little they have, however; why is it left to the poor to have to suffer the consequences of these political choices. The persistence of extreme poverty and social ills speak to a situation that bears for a different approach. It is clear that capitalism and free market solutions cannot spread wealth as advocated. American governments have shown their reluctance to admit this discrepancy through the strategic creations of welfare policies and welfare reform coupled with placing blame upon the citizens who possess little power to change market decisions that govern and effect their lives.
Kant’s moral philosophy is built around the formal principles of ethics rather than substantive human goods. He begins by outlining the principles of reasoning that can be equally expected of all rational persons regardless of their individual desires or partial interests. It creates an ideal universal community of rational individuals who can collectively agree on the moral principles for guiding equality and autonomy. This is what forms the basis for contemporary human rig...
This topic about helping poor people get out of poverty is a critical issue. Almost 800 million people across the globe, most of them children, live with hunger or malnutrition as a regular fact of life. They live in desperate poverty, which means they die younger than they should, struggle with hunger and disease, and live with little hope and less opportunity for a life of dignity (USCCB). Poverty poses a dramatic problem of justice; in its various forms and with its various effects, it is characterized by an unequal growth that does not recognize the "equal right of all people to take their seat ‘at the table of the common banquet' (Social Doctrine of the Church) ."
“If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich” (Kennedy 463). He describes the consequences of being selfish by explaining that focusing on one group will not bring success in the U.S but bring it down. There are many who are poor and suffering, but a few who are
Poverty has conquered nations around the world, striking the populations down through disease and starvation. Small children with sunken eyes are displayed on national television to remind those sitting in warm, luxiourious houses that living conditions are less than tolerable around the world. Though it is easy to empathize for the poor, it is sometimes harder to reach into our pocketbooks and support them. No one desires people to suffer, but do wealthy nations have a moral obligation to aid poor nations who are unable to help themselves? Garrett Hardin in, "Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping The Poor," uses a lifeboat analogy to expose the global negative consequences that could accompany the support of poor nations. Hardin stresses problems including population increase and environmental overuse as downfalls that are necessary to consider for the survival of wealthy nations. In contrast, Peter Singer's piece, "Rich and Poor," remarks on the large differences between living conditions of those in absolute poverty with the wealthy, concluding that the rich nations possess a moral obligation to the poor that surpasses the risks involved. Theodore Sumberg's book, "Foreign Aid As Moral Obligation," documents religious and political views that encourage foreign aid. Kevin M. Morrison and David Weiner, a research analyst and senior fellow respectively at the Overseas Development Council, note the positive impact of foreign aid to America, a wealthy nation. Following the examination of these texts, it seems that not only do we have a moral obligation to the poor, but aiding poor nations is in the best interest of wealthy nations.
In the face of media campaigns and political sanctions, the question about whether we owe the global poor assistance and rectification is an appropriate one. Despite television advertisements displaying the condition of the poor and news articles explaining it, the reality is the majority of us, especially in the Western world, are far removed from the poverty that still affects a lot of lives. The debate between Thomas Pogge and Mathias Risse regarding our obligation to the poor questions the very institution we live in. Pogge created a new framework in which the debate developed. He introduced a focus on the design of the institutional global order, and the role it plays in inflicting or at least continuing the severe poverty people are exposed to. Whilst both Mathias Risse and Thomas Pogge believe that the “global order is imperfectly developed. It needs reform rather than revolutionary overthrow”, they differ on whether or not it is just and entitles the global poor to assistance. Pogge believes that the global order is unjust as it “helps to perpetuate extreme poverty, violating our negative duty not to harm others unduly”. Risse believes that the institution is only incompletely just and can be credited to improving lives of the global poor. According to him, these improvements contribute to its justifiability and negate any further obligation we have to the poor. Through assessing their debate, it seems that one’s obligation to the poor depends on one’s conception of duty, their unit of analysis, and whether improvement rectifies injustice. On balance, it seems that we do indeed owe the poor, only we may lack the means to settle it.
If we desire X, we ought to do Y. However, categorical imperatives are not subject to conditions. The Categorical Imperative is universally binding to all rational creatures because they are rational. Kant proposes three formulations: the Categorical Imperative in his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morality, the Universal Law formulation, Humanity or End in Itself formulation, and Kingdom of Ends formulation. In this essay, the viability of the Universal Law formulation is tested by discussing two objections to it, mainly the idea that the moral laws are too absolute and the existence of false positives and false negatives.
In the excerpt “Rich and Poor” from Peter Singer’s book “Practical Ethics,” Singer critiques how he portrays the way we respond to both absolute poverty and absolute affluence. Before coming to this class, I have always believed that donating or giving something of your own to help someone else is a moral decision. After reading Peter Singer’s argument that we are obligated to assist extreme poverty, I remain with the same beliefs I previously had. I will argue that Singer’s argument is not convincing. I will demonstrate that there are important differences between being obligated to save a small child from drowning (in his Shallow Pond Example) and being obligated to assist absolute poverty. These differences restrict his argument by analogy for the obligation to assist in the case of absolute poverty.