Narveson's Argument Analysis

Improved Essays
Narveson’s argument provides the difference between charity and justice. In his argument, he considers the demands of justice are enforceable to all people, while charity is not. This means that, in some instance people are forced to act with justice because it is morally permissible, though, it is not permissible at all instance to force people to be charitable since, it is not morally permissible. Narveson's argument shows that the call to charity is personal and not forced. He argues that it not be right to force people to act charitably. Therefore, in his argument it is significant to establish if feeding the hungry is just a matter of charity or a matter of justice. Narveson's position shows that feeding the starving is a consideration …show more content…
However, he fails to classify it as the duty of justice as Narveson did. The moral perspective is lacking in Singer’s assertions. This could be a trick used to convince the audience to give voluntarily to others. Therefore, it does not promote his purport for enforcement of feeding as Narveson's uses. Narveson thinks differently from Singer by considering people’s voluntary choices of giving as morally permissible and dependence on their goodwill. When an individual chooses to sacrifice his or her luxuries to give as charity, it is morally fine. The person giving should not have any neglected obligations such as family. On the lowest level, the family should be comfortable in terms of getting basic needs. Besides, an individual is allowed to choose not to give, which also considered fine. Narveson’s argument is that people should sacrifice for charities just as they can make personal decisions to give or not to do os. Hence, an individual decision is ideal. Narveson argues that people who fail to give willfully should not be seen as having done any wrong. They must not be forced to give their money to charity and taxation. However, there is a contradiction to Singers argument in “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”. He as a utilitarian has no reason in principle to argue that it is not right to force people to sacrifice for charities. The rule of forcing individuals to

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Peter Singer ultimately believes that we are morally obligated to help those who need help and are suffering. He provides various arguments that support his belief that everyone should help the dying people of East Bengal. He starts off by assuming one thing, “suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad.” This assumption serves as a foundation for his many claims since it provides a definition for what he considers bad. Furthermore, his first claim is that we are morally obligated to stop bad things from happening only if we do not have to sacrifice something of equal value.…

    • 2138 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The moral dilemma shown here, is the same one that Singer believes occurs every time an American who already owns a TV chooses to go out and buy a new one. Instead of using this excess money to upgrade their television, they should be donating it to prevent the deaths of kids in need. Even though these two decision both have different factors to them, they both could lead to the same result. Except, in one scenario a kid dies by being sold to an organ peddler, and in the other a child dies of hunger on the street.…

    • 348 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In efforts to find summum bonum or the ultimate good, philosophers during the 20th century began to investigate ethical issues, and tried to create their own versions of an ideal moral code. During this time, John Stuart Mill and Peter Singer base their ethical beliefs in the philosophy of utilitarianism. Both Mill’s essay Utilitarianism and Singer’s work Famine, Affluence and Morality explore the pursuit of happiness and its relation to moral philosophy. The doctrine of utilitarianism emphasizes the consequences of one’s actions as they add to the sum total of happiness.…

    • 1033 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Does that have any meaning, though, if the end result - people’s lives being saved - is the same? Like mentioned prior, some of the people in the world have no other option. Whether it is a morally correct thing for one to donate when considering their motives, is not something that would cross the minds of those who are living in extreme poverty where those around them are dying and they are simply waiting their turn. Singer states that philanthropists such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are donating large sums of money towards solutions to global poverty, not due to motivations of personal divine salvation, but rather more likely out of a sense of duty. So the motivations of those who donate should simply be to better the state of his fellow man, but as well as if there were a government mandated requirement to donate then that would remove the question of if it 's their personal motives or not out of the question…

    • 1149 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    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.…

    • 769 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Moral Comparability In Famine, Affluence, and Morality by Peter Singer, he argues that we are morally obligated to donate as much money to charity as we can to help limit poverty in the world. Singer explains that there are many people in the world suffering from poverty, and living very poor-quality lives as a result of poverty. He argues that poverty is morally wrong because of the suffering it promotes. Singer believes it is the moral obligation of humans to donate as much as they can to help limit the suffering of the poor in the world, without sacrificing anything moral comparability. In this paper, I will argue that Singer uses vague language to describe what the line is for moral comparability.…

    • 1246 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Singer sets the stage for his argument by his first premise, which he believes most would agree too, that human suffering and death due to a deficiency of food, shelter, and medical aide are bad (231). Secondly, he states that if it is in one’s power to prevent something bad from happening, without having to sacrifice anything of equal moral importance, we morally ought to do it. He implies that…

    • 1497 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    What Makes the World Go Round Professor of Bioethics, Peter Singer, explains in the article “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” that all prosperous people should give all money that is not needed for basic necessities to places that are in need of food and medicine. As an American, I have knowledge this argument would shake up America as a whole. This could create a world of giving up the Capitalistic ways of America and the economic food chain. On the other hand, it could create a world of kindness and less violence. Can you imagine giving up your freedom to help others?…

    • 1058 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    In life we are faced with a series of “big questions”. These questions answer whether we are decently moral people. The ‘big question” we are going to tackle is ‘are we under an obligation to save lives?’ If so, what is required of us to be a morally decent person? In “The Gift” by Parker we learn that Zell Kravinsky would take a utilitarian approach to this question.…

    • 1409 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer discusses the moral obligation of humans to prevent bad things from happening. In particular, Singer focuses on the prevention of the famine in East Bengal during November 1971 where many people were dying from poverty. Singer argues that since global poverty may be inhibited through charitable donations, then individual people ought to be morally obligated to donate what Singer defines as their surplus of money to charities that will aid impoverished nations. Singer writes his article in the format of a thought experiment, in which he presents a number of generally agreeable premises that lead up to his conclusion which is to donate as much money to charity as what Singer determines is reasonable.…

    • 1478 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Peter Singer Argument

    • 1206 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The argument to which Singer lays his claim would be pragmatic in an idealistic world. However, this world in which human existence thrives is far from being in a state that is unimpeded by flaws. Singer argues that those who earn enough to spend their extra money on luxuries should instead donate those funds to overseas organizations to help combat poverty. This proposal is unrealistic due to reasons that you can’t expect beings who carry faultful qualities to amend their ways without delay. Many individuals who have become accustomed to living an affluent lifestyle, will feel reluctant towards Singer’s proposal due to the fear that it will jeopardize their comfortable way of life.…

    • 1206 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    What is Utilitarianism? Utilitarianism is a philosophical concept that holds an action to be held right if it tends to promote happiness for the greatest number of people. Utilitarian’s define the morally right actions as those actions that maximize happiness and minimize misery. Many believe that utilitarianism is an unrealistic theory. Arguments and responses to utilitarianism being too demanding have been made John Stuart Mill and Peter Singer.…

    • 783 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In this paper I will reconstruct Singer’s argument as well as argue why his argument is unsound. In Singer’s paper, Famine, Affluence and Morality, he argues that any kind of suffering from lack of food, healthcare and shelter is a bad thing. He further argues that if we have the ability to prevent something bad from happening, that it is our duty as moral beings to prevent suffering unless we have to sacrifice something of significant moral importance. In class we called it the prevent suffering principle. An example that Singer gives is of the prevent suffering principle is to imagine a young child drowning in a shallow pond.…

    • 815 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Peter Singer Analysis

    • 1509 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Bogging down the argument in the selfish aspects of the individual, who at most if they do work to combat global suffering is minimally affected detracts from the severity of the problem that is being addressed. What is important is the suffering the absolute poor face, and if the justification to help them is not helping them is murder, then what justification would exist? Singer’s justification still is not enough to truly compel most people into acting, and if the possibility of being a murderer is not enough then no other justification would be either, and any other would be even less compelling. Hence, it is better to assume Peter’s assertion is the case and convince more people to act. Or on a micro-level, is it not better to take Singer at face value and save lives, or at worst Singer be wrong and have still saved…

    • 1509 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The objection raised is that charity and duty are separated by a line in our society which conflicts with Peter Singer’s argument. In the essay “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” Peter Singer addresses the idea that people…

    • 1027 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays