Narveson's Argument Analysis

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