How Do You Agree With Narveson's Argument

Improved Essays
Dining at a fancy restaurant tonight? Dining out is so wonderful, and one can without difficulty, enjoy such luxuries while thousands of children are dying around the world, and one would not think doing such is an immoral act. Peter Singer would disagree. Singer believes enjoying any luxury, when one has the opportunity to donate to individuals in need instead, is considered as immoral as one allowing a child to starve right in front of oneself (Shafer-Landau 223-29). Clearly, victims of poverty and starvation have a right to the portion of the general public’s money, exceeding necessities (Shafer-Landau 229). Singer would agree with that statement, but Jan Narveson would undoubtedly disagree. Narveson believes one does not have any moral obligations to feed the hungry, but, of course, one can feed the hungry if one chooses to, making one incredibly kind hearted (Shafer-Landau 231-43). If one had to agree with one of two extremes, in this case between Singer and Narveson, Narveson’s argument is most agreeable while Singer’s is deficient. Beginning with Peter Singer, one could agree there is a similarity between …show more content…
Singer’s argument is extremely flawed, especially when suggesting the general public to donate all extra money beyond necessities (Shafer-Landau 229). Suggesting such is, essentially, violating one’s autonomy to force one to donate one’s earnings. Singer, also, would be incorrect to consider that dining at a restaurant, and watching movies at the theater could be unnecessary. Some individuals need to relieve stress by going out or watching television, and stress is ultimately bad for one’s health, so one would be obligated to relieve stress. Narveson merely recommends that human beings do not have an responsibility to benefit one another, but does not suggest that one should not (Shafer-Landau 231). One cannot argue that Narveson has the maximum comprehensible

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Peter Singer Poverty

    • 1063 Words
    • 5 Pages

    In this essay “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” Peter Singer is trying to persuade the society that the world hunger and poverty will be solved if people from wealthy society donate the money that spend on their luxuries to the aid organization. He gives two controversies examples of Dora’s situation and Bob’s situation which help to strengthen his argument. From that examples it is also supports his arguments in favor of his altruistic position. On the other hand he also address the objections to his arguments which is “fair share” and “the limit of the donation.…

    • 1063 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Aiding all those in absolute poverty could lead to massive overpopulation and the decreasing development of richer nations. An argument supporting this objection is that it is better to save some people rather than none, however some people must still be left behind. I believe that Singer does have a point about helping out the poor but he fails to establish that we absolutely have a duty to help everyone Singer’s other article, All Animals Are Equal, makes claims that we as human beings should show the same respect to the lives of non-humans so that all animals are equal.…

    • 744 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Second Argument Evaluation, Singer: Morality’s Ambivalent Behavior in the Face of Affluence In the piece “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer puts forth his argument that “if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything else morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it,” (Cahn, 505). In his argument Singer claims that men have the moral responsibility to prevent suffering when it does not negatively impact “himself or his dependents” (Cahn, 508), and that the refusal of this prescribed human duty makes him morally incompetent. The extended example that Singer uses as the basis of his argument is the mass famine that struck East Bengal in the 1970s, an issue that received much media coverage, yet—despite its fame—received little help from affluent countries and their constituents. In using this example, Singer exemplifies the ignorance of the prosperous bodies as they chose to allow tragedy to strike…

    • 836 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Just Desserts Analysis

    • 1286 Words
    • 6 Pages

    In Arthur's paper “Famine Relief and the Ideal Moral Code” he examines Singer’s paper on moral principles, in which Singer states that all humans are on the same level of need. Thus supporting one without the resources to obtain food is always more important than buying yourself luxuries. Arthur’s rebuttal to Singer’s statement comes in the form of what Arthur calls “Just Desserts”. Arthur defines “Just Desserts” as “the idea that sometimes people deserve to keep what they have acquired” (Arthur 500). This paper will analyze Arthur's argument for just deserts, and ultimately argue that it is a viable and important variable in creating a moral code.…

    • 1286 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior 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
  • Improved Essays

    What duty do we have to help those who might otherwise starve without our intervention? Is it our responsibility to help our fellow man in need or are we free to stand on the sidelines? Philosophers Jan Narveson and Peter Singer offer contrasting viewpoints on the moral obligations affluent nations have to aid and support the poor. Where Singer reasons that by having the privilege of living in nations of wealth, this benefit carries with it the moral obligation to help those around the world who are sentenced to live in absolute poverty, if only because of where fate had them born. In response, Narveson argues Singer is mistaken: our responsibility and duty first lies to our circle and we should never insist that others take the responsibility…

    • 816 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
  • 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
  • Decent Essays

    In the first reading, What Should a billionaire give, the author Peter Singer touches upon a question we has humans have been asking for centuries, should the rich give away some of their earnings to help the less fortunate. Singer makes the argument that if we humans would have a price tag, we would be worth millions, yet we find it hard to sometimes give a little share of our money to help humans who are suffering. Singer uses real billionaires are examples in this reading such as Bill Gates and what he does with some of his money to help others, instead of keeping it all to him. WE do not know if it our obligation as humans to end world hunger and solve all economical issues, but we do have a job to have each other’s backs in any situation,…

    • 296 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent 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
  • Superior Essays

    Everyday millions of people around the world suffer in circumstances, in which they could die from lack of proper care and resources. In Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Peter Singer acknowledges this issue facing humanity and argues for the moral obligation to give large amounts of money to those in need. Singer believes that all who are able should be giving up many, if not all of their luxuries to help give the less fortunate their necessities. I will begin by summarizing the argument that Singer dictates in his article and then explain my reasoning for believing his notions to be sound and valid.…

    • 2212 Words
    • 9 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

    Therefore, consequently utilitarianism does not support not giving to famine relief, validating Singer’s claim that giving to alleviate famine is a moral…

    • 866 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Life You Can Save Argument

    • 1197 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Peter Singer’s main philosophy is that no child or adult living in poor countries should die due to a lack of fresh water, food or basic health and medical needs. He gives examples like the drowning child to make people aware that, if it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything as valuable or important, then it is wrong not to do so. Mr. Singer feels that people that live and receive beyond their basic needs should contribute to aid agencies. Singer believes that spending extra money on luxuries while 10 million children are dying due to poverty is just utterly and morally erroneous. Thus, John Arthur is also a utilitarian and believes that people should contribute to aid agencies that will stop unfortunate people from dying each year due to poverty.…

    • 1197 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In The Singer Solution to World Poverty, Singer guilts the audience for excessively spending when that money could be used to save a child's life, to the extent of donating everything but the necessities to live (Singer 372). This logic takes self sacrifice to an unreasonable extreme where it would not be possible to live a morally decent life but also a content life at the same time because there will always be more children to save and more ways that you feel obligated to help. On the other end, is extreme selfishness shown by Hardin who argues that because equality is impossible, we must preserve resources for ourselves to save the world from “environmental ruin” (Hardin 368) This flaw in this is acknowledged the fact that there are other people's out in the community suffering but we shouldn’t attempt to help because it is for our own survival. This weighs heavily on the conscience, making it difficult to enjoy things that bring joy or as Russell claims, a feeling of inclusiveness with the community (Russell 364). Both Singer’s and Hardin’s arguments are extremes at opposite ends and a “good life” is somewhere in…

    • 766 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays