Singer on the duty of giving to the poor Introduction When do we know that is right to give help to someone? How do we estimate the exact amount to give in terms of aid to the poverty stricken individuals? They are some of the important questions that Peter Singer tries to explain in his moral stand on our duty to give. The purpose of the paper is to offer a critical explanation of Singer’s position on how much and why we should support those in need as well as evaluating the criticism of Arthur on Singer’s point of view. According to Singer, many people in the world today are in need of our help each and every day. They lead miserable lives due to the natural calamities that strike upsetting their livelihood. Some of
…show more content…
In such a case, the act is viewed as being charitable. Therefore, charity does not require that one gives aid but instead one ought to give when they consider it important. However, the stronger principle implies that one has a duty to give to the poor in affected countries. Perhaps many of us do not agree with such a statement. It is true there are individuals in the world living in harsh conditions who require our hel p. Therefore, the little we give goes a long way in helping those in need even if it is used in buying a mosquito net as it will prevent the individual from contracting malaria (Singer, 29). However, John Arthur does not agree with the argument presented by Singer on the duty of giving. According to Arthur, we all work hard to earn the few or more cents we have in our accounts. Since it the person who puts in efforts to acquire the money, then it is up to him or her to make a decision on how to spend the money (Arthur). He argues that an individual is not bound by any law to give their money in form of assistance to those who require it. The argument apparently differs from Singer’s point thus viewed as an objection to his principles. In one way of the other, many people agree with argument that …show more content…
You will all agree that most practical situations today are immoral. For example, a student would rather look over the shoulders of a friend to copy an exam rather than study for endless hours. Such an act is considered cheating and hence not morally acceptable. Therefore, the idea of Arthur objecting to the point made by Singer on the duty of giving basing on the pragmatic aspect of ethics aims at limiting the scope of ethics in general. On the other hand, James Shikwati also objects to Singer’s position on giving aid to those that are in need. Unlike Arthur, Shikwati argues that foreign aid to the developing worlds does not help much in changing the current situation but instead worsens it. According to him, giving money to those in need limits its use to the people. For instance, a peasant farmer with a leaking roof will receive aid to repair it from foreign aid. Therefore, when he gets the money, he will be forced to repair the roof despite their being other valuable roles that the money could be used. Such a reason explains why aid will never be sufficient for the struggling nations to improve their worthy. Instead, Shikwati argues that the young brilliant minds from the countries should take the challenge and turn it into opportunities as well
In such a case, the act is viewed as being charitable. Therefore, charity does not require that one gives aid but instead one ought to give when they consider it important. However, the stronger principle implies that one has a duty to give to the poor in affected countries. Perhaps many of us do not agree with such a statement. It is true there are individuals in the world living in harsh conditions who require our hel p. Therefore, the little we give goes a long way in helping those in need even if it is used in buying a mosquito net as it will prevent the individual from contracting malaria (Singer, 29). However, John Arthur does not agree with the argument presented by Singer on the duty of giving. According to Arthur, we all work hard to earn the few or more cents we have in our accounts. Since it the person who puts in efforts to acquire the money, then it is up to him or her to make a decision on how to spend the money (Arthur). He argues that an individual is not bound by any law to give their money in form of assistance to those who require it. The argument apparently differs from Singer’s point thus viewed as an objection to his principles. In one way of the other, many people agree with argument that …show more content…
You will all agree that most practical situations today are immoral. For example, a student would rather look over the shoulders of a friend to copy an exam rather than study for endless hours. Such an act is considered cheating and hence not morally acceptable. Therefore, the idea of Arthur objecting to the point made by Singer on the duty of giving basing on the pragmatic aspect of ethics aims at limiting the scope of ethics in general. On the other hand, James Shikwati also objects to Singer’s position on giving aid to those that are in need. Unlike Arthur, Shikwati argues that foreign aid to the developing worlds does not help much in changing the current situation but instead worsens it. According to him, giving money to those in need limits its use to the people. For instance, a peasant farmer with a leaking roof will receive aid to repair it from foreign aid. Therefore, when he gets the money, he will be forced to repair the roof despite their being other valuable roles that the money could be used. Such a reason explains why aid will never be sufficient for the struggling nations to improve their worthy. Instead, Shikwati argues that the young brilliant minds from the countries should take the challenge and turn it into opportunities as well