Libertarians, believe that while they're unequivocally responsible for any evils they may inflict on others, regardless of what the cercumstances my be that they owe those people compenstation. However, They also allege that there is no conceivable argument that we owe something, as matter of general duty to those whom we have not wronged. A good generalization of Libertarians is that they 'would go as far as abolishing the state welfair scheames helping to house, feed, provied insurance benifits, and job assistance if they saw fit.' This comparison I believe, for me at least, helps to give a clearer understanding of what a Libertarian stands for, and how far they're willing to go to uphold those beliefs. The Kantian theory of ethics purports
…show more content…
Some of the ways in which he argues this is, Industrial fleets are causing substantial damage to our coral reefs where fish breed which is a major protein source for the poor. Futhermore, the impact on the sea life and the ability to fish is causing the local fisherman to lose one if not the only ways to feed their families, as well as provide an income. Another way in which the wealthy effect not just the poor, but everyone in general is by the use of their large jets carrying very minimal passengers undoubtable adding to the already substantial damnage to the environment increasing global warming effects. The amount of food, water, and overall resource waste that is incurred by the wealthy also causing considerable negative effects. The protectionist trade policies of rich nations, for example, have driven down the price of exports of poor nations. In fact, according to Singer, allowing a person to die from hunger when it is easily within one's means to prevent it is no different, morally speaking, from killing another human being. Singer says, 'that the failure of people in the rich nations to make any significant sacrifices in order to assist people who are dying from poverty-related causes in ethically indefensible.' Singer himself not just advocates these beliefs he lives by them. He himself gives away around a quarter of his income holding the belief that it should be
Some of the ways in which he argues this is, Industrial fleets are causing substantial damage to our coral reefs where fish breed which is a major protein source for the poor. Futhermore, the impact on the sea life and the ability to fish is causing the local fisherman to lose one if not the only ways to feed their families, as well as provide an income. Another way in which the wealthy effect not just the poor, but everyone in general is by the use of their large jets carrying very minimal passengers undoubtable adding to the already substantial damnage to the environment increasing global warming effects. The amount of food, water, and overall resource waste that is incurred by the wealthy also causing considerable negative effects. The protectionist trade policies of rich nations, for example, have driven down the price of exports of poor nations. In fact, according to Singer, allowing a person to die from hunger when it is easily within one's means to prevent it is no different, morally speaking, from killing another human being. Singer says, 'that the failure of people in the rich nations to make any significant sacrifices in order to assist people who are dying from poverty-related causes in ethically indefensible.' Singer himself not just advocates these beliefs he lives by them. He himself gives away around a quarter of his income holding the belief that it should be