Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
EFFECTS OF poverty in humanity
Consequences of poverty in a community
Consequences of poverty in a community
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: EFFECTS OF poverty in humanity
Moral obligation is a controversial matter. We currently live in a “world of plenty”, however, the number of human beings dying or suffering from hunger, malnutrition or disease is staggering. In this essay, I am going to examine the arguments for and against moral obligation to helping the poor and starving, and in particular I will take into account Singer’s opinions on the matter.
“Do we have any obligations to, or moral responsibility for, people living in other countries? If so, are we responsible only for our political allies, or obligated only to countries we think can benefit us? Or are we also obligated to countries with which we have few, no or even antagonistic, relations? We are obligated not to harm others but are we obligated to do more than not harm others?”
There are around 6 billion humans living on earth today and 790 million of those lack adequate nutrition. Around 1 billion humans lack access to safe water. 2.4 billion people lack basic sanitation. 880 million lack access to healthcare services. 1 billion don’t have shelter and live exposed to the elements. 2 billion people live without the use of electricity. 250 million children between the ages of 5-14 work in factories or as sex workers and are denied the opportunity for education. 1 billion adults are illiterate. Roughly 50,000 deaths per day on this planet are due to poverty. People die because they don’t have the basics for a decent human life. In the United Nations Charter – Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there are two articles we can take into consideration when thinking about moral obligation. Firstly, Article 25: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family including food, ...
... middle of paper ...
...ld you choose who to let onto your boat with your reserve and whose life to save. Should we just help people on a first come first serve basis or should we think of other methodical and possibly more practical ways to help people in need.
Unkindness is not merely conduct that is not kind, but conduct that is insufficiently kind...
Many people use the excuse that they don’t need to help developing economies when many other people do anyway however from a utilitarian point of view, the fact that other people could help doesn’t lessen your responsibility.
Without a true world government to control reproduction and the use of available resources, the sharing ethic of the spaceship is impossible. For the foreseeable future, our survival demands that we govern our actions by the ethics of a lifeboat, harsh though they may be. Posterity will be satisfied with nothing less.
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
Peter Singer’s position in his work “The Obligation to Assist”, is that all people are morally obligated to help one another without it causing any additional harm. He refers to “comparable moral significance”, which means that helping another must not cause anything worse to happen, or be a morally wrong action in and of itself, and must also be done if a comparably awful event can be stopped. His first premise is that if absolute poverty is wrong, and it can be stopped without worse consequences, then it should be stopped altogether. His second premise is that if you were to see a drowning child, you would help them out of the lake, even if your coat happens to get wet. His third premise is that morals do not need to be examined, as the need to help others should be logical without examining the morality behind it. His final premise is that the First World is rich enough to reduce poverty, and can therefore feel obligated to help. The implication of this position is that no matter what situation surrounds the person in need of help, another person would be obligated to assist them. Thusly, people who could help without having to forgo “comparable moral significance” and refrain from
In Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence and Morality,” Singer makes three claims about moral duty; that avoidable suffering is bad, that it is our moral obligation to help others in need, and that we should help those in suffering regardless of their distance to us or if others are in the same position as we are to help. First, I will elaborate on Singer’s arguments for each of these positions. Next, I will discuss two objections to Singer’s position, one that he debates in his writings and another that I examine on my own, and Singer’s responses to those objections. Then I will examine why Singer’s rebuttals to the objections were successful.
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.
Moral obligation in Peter Singer’s Famine, Affluence, and Morality in contrast to John Arthur’s World Hunger and Moral Obligation: The case against Singer
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.
Singer uses some extreme methods in order to achieve his goal of getting readers to truly believe in his ideas and change their values and lifestyles. He uses an informal and conversational tone in this article and he demonstrates his views in an emotional manner by giving several illustrations. The author’s main point is that it is morally wrong for affluent people to spend money on unnecessary things such as restaurants and vacations when children are suffering in other countries. The use of this points out that the author believes in moralistic and compassionate values.
In Peter Singer’s article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” he discusses the moral dilemmas that shouldn’t really be dilemmas. He claims that if there is a possibility that you can prevent something bad from happening, without a significant sacrifice on our part, you ought to do it. Singer brings up many good points to support his claim. In the end, there is a flaw in his reasoning. There are certain situations where morals or laws must be broken for the greater good.
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.
Theories of global distributive justice address the following sorts of questions. Should we feel morally concerned about the large gap between the developing countries and the developed countries? What duty do us citizens have to provide assistance to the global poor? And what scale should we take the duties to?
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.
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 every religion there is a distinctive understanding of value and duty, of right and wrong, and of good and bad. Modern Christianity is no exception and believes in each of these things. Christians know there is only one God and he created and rules over all things. They know that it is through Gods grace and love that we may have eternal life. That love and grace does not come without a price. The price is a life that is lived for God. It carries with it certain ethical and moral responsibilities to the community and all mankind. Those moral and ethical responsibilities are the backbone for society.
While there is no clear definition for ‘human rights’, it is possible to describe them as basic moral and legal rights that all people have, simply in virtue of their humanity. Although human rights are traditionally associated with being civil and political rights, they also include socioeconomic rights. Focusing on a political conception of human rights, it is important to note that not every question of social justice is a human rights issue. Despite UN declarations, many do not consider poverty a violation of human rights. Severe poverty, traditionally defined in terms of low income, concerns insecurity caused by a lack of resources. By the UN dividing its human rights law into two separate treaties, countries are able to endorse civil