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
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