Summary
John Arthurs has a unique stance on world hunger and moral obligation and the way that we should handle these issues. He opens up his argument by analyzing one of Pete Singers rules “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. “(666) Arthur believes that rule of life is a flawed one. He counters this statement by giving a scenario using Singers moral rule. Arthur states “All of us could help others by giving away or allowing others to use our bodies. While your life may be shortened by the loss of a kidney or less enjoyable if lived with only one eye.” (667) Arthur uses this to argue against the greater moral evil rule …show more content…
Arthur furthers his argument by giving the two types of moral rights. The first one being negative rights that are right of noninterference. The second type of rights is positive rights being rights of recipience. Arthur then explains how a duty to help a stranger is not a noninterference right but a positive right in that there is no contract or promise made so no rights exist. Arthur does clarify that “An exception to this would be a lifeguard who contracts to watch out for someone’s children.” (667) Arthurs stance on entitlement is “Whether we have rights to money, property, eyes or whatever, depends on how we came to possess them.” (668) If the said object was acquired in an illegal way than it is said to be suspect. Arthur proposes that part of our moral code be dropped “So that people could no longer invoke rights and desert as justification for not making large sacrifices for strangers.” (668)
The content of Arthurs argument is valid but unsound due to flaws in his premise. The first problem that I find in Arthurs argument is how he uses the moral evil rule. Singer implied this rule to simply say if you can help someone in need without inconveniencing yourself then you should do so. Arthur goes on to give
John Arthurs has a unique stance on world hunger and moral obligation and the way that we should handle these issues. He opens up his argument by analyzing one of Pete Singers rules “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. “(666) Arthur believes that rule of life is a flawed one. He counters this statement by giving a scenario using Singers moral rule. Arthur states “All of us could help others by giving away or allowing others to use our bodies. While your life may be shortened by the loss of a kidney or less enjoyable if lived with only one eye.” (667) Arthur uses this to argue against the greater moral evil rule …show more content…
Arthur furthers his argument by giving the two types of moral rights. The first one being negative rights that are right of noninterference. The second type of rights is positive rights being rights of recipience. Arthur then explains how a duty to help a stranger is not a noninterference right but a positive right in that there is no contract or promise made so no rights exist. Arthur does clarify that “An exception to this would be a lifeguard who contracts to watch out for someone’s children.” (667) Arthurs stance on entitlement is “Whether we have rights to money, property, eyes or whatever, depends on how we came to possess them.” (668) If the said object was acquired in an illegal way than it is said to be suspect. Arthur proposes that part of our moral code be dropped “So that people could no longer invoke rights and desert as justification for not making large sacrifices for strangers.” (668)
The content of Arthurs argument is valid but unsound due to flaws in his premise. The first problem that I find in Arthurs argument is how he uses the moral evil rule. Singer implied this rule to simply say if you can help someone in need without inconveniencing yourself then you should do so. Arthur goes on to give