In Arthur's paper “Famine Relief and the Ideal Moral Code” he examines Singer’s paper on moral principles, in which Singer states that all humans are on the same level of need. Thus supporting one without the resources to obtain food is always more important than buying yourself luxuries. Arthur’s rebuttal to Singer’s statement comes in the form of what Arthur calls “Just Desserts”. Arthur defines “Just Desserts” as “the idea that sometimes people deserve to keep what they have acquired” (Arthur 500). This paper will analyze Arthur's argument for just deserts, and ultimately argue that it is a viable and important variable in creating a moral code. Arthur breaks his theory of “just desserts” into two parts: Positive and negative. I will first analyze the positive variation of “Just Desserts”.
The positive variation of “Just Desserts” follows the direct definition given. Arthur uses the example of a farmer who has worked very hard and has gained a surplus of food for the winter. Yet, his neighbor who is a lazy farmer, has not worked hard enough to gain a surplus of food, and does not have enough for the winter. By following Singers greater moral evil principle: if we can help another without giving up anything of significant moral importance we ought to do it, the hardworking farmer should …show more content…
The greater moral evil principle works in a lot of cases when they are very specific and usually within the extremes, but fails to work in general broader cases. “Just desserts” is valid without a common understanding of morals, as it is intuitive and universal that a positive action should create a positive consequence, and vice versa. It is the reason that “Just Desserts” is valid in scenarios in which Singers theory is invalid, that is so useful in the creation of a set of moral
The positive variation of “Just Desserts” follows the direct definition given. Arthur uses the example of a farmer who has worked very hard and has gained a surplus of food for the winter. Yet, his neighbor who is a lazy farmer, has not worked hard enough to gain a surplus of food, and does not have enough for the winter. By following Singers greater moral evil principle: if we can help another without giving up anything of significant moral importance we ought to do it, the hardworking farmer should …show more content…
The greater moral evil principle works in a lot of cases when they are very specific and usually within the extremes, but fails to work in general broader cases. “Just desserts” is valid without a common understanding of morals, as it is intuitive and universal that a positive action should create a positive consequence, and vice versa. It is the reason that “Just Desserts” is valid in scenarios in which Singers theory is invalid, that is so useful in the creation of a set of moral