Argumentative Summary On The Famine In Africa

1072 Words3 Pages

Theodore Johnson
Dr. Degnan
PHIL 214
05-01-14
Argumentative Essay
Setting:
After recently watching a PBS special on the refugees and famine that can be found across the continent of Africa, Rachel, a social justice major, Kevin, an economics and business major, and myself find ourselves discussing the opinions of Peter Singer and John Arthur about what should be done about the famine in Africa. Rachel agrees with Singer and the idea that we are morally obligated to donate all the money we spend on luxuries to famine relief instead. However, Kevin agrees with Arthur and believes Singer is not correct. They are both trying their best to convince me which side to agree with.

Rachel:
After watching the special it should be more than obvious that deaths that are caused by starvation and other famine related incidents are forms of pain and suffering. I would also hope that you agree with me when I say that suffering is bad. We as a worldly community definitely have the necessary capabilities to eliminate this type of suffering. However, for some unknown reason, we choose not to, which is morally wrong. No matter where we are in the world in relation to the people suffering, they are still going to suffer unless we step forward and do something about it. The distance between two people does not lessen the amount of pain one might feel

Myself:
Rachel, I completely agree with the notions that suffering is bad and that something should be done to prevent it from escalating and I am sure that Kevin would agree with those arguments as well, but what would you say to someone that says that there is no reason why we should feel a need to help those that are suffering or dying.

Rachel:
We as humans have a moral duty to prevent...

... middle of paper ...

...thur is right when he talks about positive rights and how there is no such contract that exists that binds us to an agreement to give all of our excess money to those facing famine. If I have an agreement with you to watch your dog while you’re on vacation and the dog get hits by a car, it would be both the driver’s fault and my own fault because with had a contract. However, if I was just walking down the street and I happened to see your dog get hit by a car, it would only be the driver’s fault. Although I would be sympathetic, it would not be my fault because there is a lack of an agreement in which I take responsibility of your dog. I would only feel a moral obligation towards someone if we had a contract formed and had positive rights involved, but if it is a situation in which there is no agreement, then I shouldn’t feel any moral obligation towards anyone.

Open Document