Explain Singer's argument for why, and how much, we should give to those in need. Explain Arthur's and Shikwati's objections to Singer. Give your opinion as to how much aid should be given to those who are in need in other countries, and justify your opinion.
In "Famine, Affluence, and Morality", Peter Singer argues that people living in the wealthy countries have duties to prevent extreme world hunger. However, John Arthur opposes his argument in "World Hunger and Moral Obligation: The Case Against Singer." Though Arthur thinks we should help to those in needs, it is not our moral duty to do so. Economist James Shikwati on the other hand, gives an argument why helping the countries in need, in this case Africa, effects negatively in the …show more content…
Singer does not bother to argue with this statement, as he is very confident that most people would agree. Le Guin, an American author, is famous for her critique of Utilitarianism in a story called "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas." In the story, there is a village called the Omelas that is peaceful, but at the cost of an imprisoned child. It is treated cruelly, has a lack of food, has no medical aid, stays in a dark basement with little light and is neither told why. The child is dehumanized throughout the story and by an unspoken contract the child must be treated badly, to continue the long living peace of the village. Either all the people from the village live happily at the cost of one child's suffering or return to normal life by freeing the imprisoned child for the chance of happiness for one. Utilitarianism generally considers the happiness for the majority, leading to the point that suffering of the child is actually a "good" thing. Is it not conflicting with the Singer's premise which says the suffering from lack of food, and lack of medical care is bad? Singer might say that the story is not realistic. If we were to compare the story to our world, the unfortunate child could be aligned with those working in sweatshops, who work day and night to make products that we use in our everyday
In "Famine, Affluence, and Morality", Peter Singer argues that people living in the wealthy countries have duties to prevent extreme world hunger. However, John Arthur opposes his argument in "World Hunger and Moral Obligation: The Case Against Singer." Though Arthur thinks we should help to those in needs, it is not our moral duty to do so. Economist James Shikwati on the other hand, gives an argument why helping the countries in need, in this case Africa, effects negatively in the …show more content…
Singer does not bother to argue with this statement, as he is very confident that most people would agree. Le Guin, an American author, is famous for her critique of Utilitarianism in a story called "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas." In the story, there is a village called the Omelas that is peaceful, but at the cost of an imprisoned child. It is treated cruelly, has a lack of food, has no medical aid, stays in a dark basement with little light and is neither told why. The child is dehumanized throughout the story and by an unspoken contract the child must be treated badly, to continue the long living peace of the village. Either all the people from the village live happily at the cost of one child's suffering or return to normal life by freeing the imprisoned child for the chance of happiness for one. Utilitarianism generally considers the happiness for the majority, leading to the point that suffering of the child is actually a "good" thing. Is it not conflicting with the Singer's premise which says the suffering from lack of food, and lack of medical care is bad? Singer might say that the story is not realistic. If we were to compare the story to our world, the unfortunate child could be aligned with those working in sweatshops, who work day and night to make products that we use in our everyday