Global Poverty: Peter Singer, And Immanuel Kant

Global Poverty: Final Term Paper

John Arthur, an American professor of philosophy stated: “Is [Richard] Watson correct that all life is of equal value? Did Adolf Hitler and Martin Luther King, for example, lead equally valuable lives? Clearly one did far more good, the other far more harm; who would deny that while King fought for people’s rights, Hitler violated them on a massive scale? Nor are moral virtues like courage, kindness, and trustworthiness equally distributed among people. So there are many important sense in which people are not, in fact, morally equal: Some lives are more valuable to others, and some people are just, generous, and courageous, whereas others are unjust and cowardly” (*insert year quote was made).

Is there a moral

I will also articulate my positions regarding proposals from John Arthur, Peter Singer, and Immanuel Kant. John Arthur, an American philosopher, states that “this idea can be expressed rather awkwardly by the notion of entitlements, by which I have in mind the thought that having either a right or justly deserving something can also be important as we think about our obligations to others.” The other side of the coin would be the views of Peter Singer, an Australian moral philosopher, states that “...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.” Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, believes that “The practical necessity of acting on this principle -- that is, duty -- is not based on at all on feelings, impulses, and inclinations, but only on the relation of rational beings to one another, a relation in which the will of a rational being must be regarded as lawgiving, because otherwise it could not be thought of as an end in

I am well aware of global poverty statistics and I do agree that if the most affluent people banded together, global poverty can altogether be abolished. However, I definitely cosign the fact that, what I work for is mine, what I own is mine and I am entitled to it. John Arthur suggests that equality and entitlements are both of equal importance when the topic is our social moral code, which is a system that we follow to guide us and that we use to make decisions. For example, as a full time college student, I work 35 hours a week, getting paid an inadequate amount, - which is besides the point - I see a homeless man begging for money, and my options are to either take the Peter Singer approach and give him money, because I feel the need to lessen global poverty even though it’s a small step towards improvement, or I can take the John Arthur approach and simply keep it moving and not even bother to contribute whether it be to lessen or worsen the issue of global poverty. It may sound selfish, but it is what it is and I simply see it as I’m entitled to my earnings. I’m more inclined to choose the option of not increasing or decreasing the problem at hand because I feel if roles were switched it wouldn’t even be an option for someone to help me even in the slightest way. We are all equal but however, that doesn’t mean financially or physically, it is in terms of we are all