It is a foregone conclusion that in a world of seven billion individuals, some are bound to be impoverished. A United Nations study conducted in 2014 found that approximately one half of the population of the world — upwards of 3 billion people — survive on less than $2.50 a day. More worrisome still, upwards of 1.3 billion live below the line of extreme poverty — less than $1.25 a day. Such an egregious affront surely requires the co-operation of those more well off in the developed world in order to reach some sort of equilibrium. So then, what of those on the other end of the economic spectrum? What duty does a single man of a moderately wealthy income — for the purpose of argument, say $100,000 per annum — have to help the extreme poor?
…show more content…
There are two distinct subcategories of entitlements, rights and deserts. Rights are further divided by Arthur into what he refers to as negative rights of noninterference and positive rights of recipience. These two types of rights however are mutually exclusive, especially in the context of money. The well-off man in question has the negative right to do what he wants with his own property, in this instance, his earnings. These rights are essentially a claim by one person that imposes a "negative" duty on everyone else—the duty not to interfere with a person's activities in a certain area. However, positive rights impose a positive duty on society—the duty to actively help someone to do or to have a certain thing. A young person's right to food or healthcare, for example, imposes on society a duty to provide that person with food and medicine. Therefore it can be said that respecting a positive right requires more than merely inaction; positive rights impose on society the duty to assist in sustaining the welfare of people in need of assistance. Arthur states that our moral code requires the respect of both positive rights and negative rights while also lending help to those in most desperate need. It is argued by Arthur that we have our own rights and justifications as to why we may not extend help to complete strangers of if the need of another is
There are two distinct subcategories of entitlements, rights and deserts. Rights are further divided by Arthur into what he refers to as negative rights of noninterference and positive rights of recipience. These two types of rights however are mutually exclusive, especially in the context of money. The well-off man in question has the negative right to do what he wants with his own property, in this instance, his earnings. These rights are essentially a claim by one person that imposes a "negative" duty on everyone else—the duty not to interfere with a person's activities in a certain area. However, positive rights impose a positive duty on society—the duty to actively help someone to do or to have a certain thing. A young person's right to food or healthcare, for example, imposes on society a duty to provide that person with food and medicine. Therefore it can be said that respecting a positive right requires more than merely inaction; positive rights impose on society the duty to assist in sustaining the welfare of people in need of assistance. Arthur states that our moral code requires the respect of both positive rights and negative rights while also lending help to those in most desperate need. It is argued by Arthur that we have our own rights and justifications as to why we may not extend help to complete strangers of if the need of another is