How Do You Agree With Narveson's Argument

Dining at a fancy restaurant tonight? Dining out is so wonderful, and one can without difficulty, enjoy such luxuries while thousands of children are dying around the world, and one would not think doing such is an immoral act. Peter Singer would disagree. Singer believes enjoying any luxury, when one has the opportunity to donate to individuals in need instead, is considered as immoral as one allowing a child to starve right in front of oneself (Shafer-Landau 223-29). Clearly, victims of poverty and starvation have a right to the portion of the general public’s money, exceeding necessities (Shafer-Landau 229). Singer would agree with that statement, but Jan Narveson would undoubtedly disagree. Narveson believes one does not have any moral obligations to feed the hungry, but, of course, one can feed the hungry if one chooses to, making one incredibly kind hearted (Shafer-Landau 231-43). If one had to agree with one of two extremes, in this case between Singer and Narveson, Narveson’s argument is most agreeable while Singer’s is deficient. Beginning with Peter Singer, one could agree there is a similarity between …show more content…
Singer’s argument is extremely flawed, especially when suggesting the general public to donate all extra money beyond necessities (Shafer-Landau 229). Suggesting such is, essentially, violating one’s autonomy to force one to donate one’s earnings. Singer, also, would be incorrect to consider that dining at a restaurant, and watching movies at the theater could be unnecessary. Some individuals need to relieve stress by going out or watching television, and stress is ultimately bad for one’s health, so one would be obligated to relieve stress. Narveson merely recommends that human beings do not have an responsibility to benefit one another, but does not suggest that one should not (Shafer-Landau 231). One cannot argue that Narveson has the maximum comprehensible