Philosophers Jan Narveson And Peter Singer: Moral Responsibility And Duty

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 …show more content…
Where Singer's guideline dictates, “If it is in our power to prevent something very bad happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance we ought to do it” (147). Narveson withstands that there is a division between principles in the abstract to be weighted against potential outcomes and policies that are “pursued in the real world, (where) facts cannot be ignored” (145). Further, what we are committed to do (justice) and what might be ethically virtuous for us to do, charity. Resisting arguments that we should compel others into action, Narveson states that while it is virtuous to aid to others, it is never it is never morally tolerable to force someone to be charitable. Charity depends on empathy and is an activity that flows from the heart. Singer contends that we generally have an ethical obligation and duty to help those at risk, and spare them wherever possible. Narveson believes that while it is noble to help another person on the off chance that it bears the little cost to ourselves, this isn't required for us to be …show more content…
He reasons that everyone on the planet does not have an equal entitlement on the resources of others, that we are bound to a greater duty to our family and circle, who have a greater right. By providing for and ensuring happiness to our immediate needs from all others that may claim to our resources, is, in fact, a more efficient means to achieve happiness. Singer counters that although pockets within these first world nations can experience poverty relative to others within their population, these developing nations face absolute poverty, where life is plagued by hardships including death, disease, squalid living conditions and overall despair. Where industrialized nations possess a prosperity and capacity to provide assistance to third world nations, Singer suggests that a donation of one-tenth of their wage would not only lessen the destitution of their fellow man but could be achieved without cost to their own particular well-being and wealth. As this act would maximize the utility or happiness for the greatest number of world citizens and therefore have an ethical obligation to do

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    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.…

    • 562 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Peter Singer ultimately believes that we are morally obligated to help those who need help and are suffering. He provides various arguments that support his belief that everyone should help the dying people of East Bengal. He starts off by assuming one thing, “suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad.” This assumption serves as a foundation for his many claims since it provides a definition for what he considers bad. Furthermore, his first claim is that we are morally obligated to stop bad things from happening only if we do not have to sacrifice something of equal value.…

    • 2138 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The moral dilemma shown here, is the same one that Singer believes occurs every time an American who already owns a TV chooses to go out and buy a new one. Instead of using this excess money to upgrade their television, they should be donating it to prevent the deaths of kids in need. Even though these two decision both have different factors to them, they both could lead to the same result. Except, in one scenario a kid dies by being sold to an organ peddler, and in the other a child dies of hunger on the street.…

    • 348 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Peter Singer Poverty

    • 1063 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Peter Singer argues that most people will think that Bob’s action is unhuman and wrong than he remind us that we also have the opportunities to save children around the world from dying through organization such UNICEF or Oxfam America etc. By comparison, Singers states “…Bob’s situation resembles that of people able but unwilling to donate to oversea aid….”(203) Since the result of Bob not throwing the switch is that the child died, that can be said the same to the people not donating to help poor children results in children dying. In other word, Singers believes that if we think everything is wrong when it is involving children death then it is also wrong for not donating to the charities because it also leads to children’s death. Singer also provides a calculation and information on how much we need to donate in order to save a 2 year-old child.…

    • 1063 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    We are humans and have good in ourselves, humans are to act as well mean, and not as inhumane this is what make us humans. Mother Teresa echoes, “Give, but give until it hurts.” She has similar principle to Singer’s principle, which is if it’s in our hands to prevent something happening without sacrificing anything of comparable morale significate, then we ought to do…

    • 1410 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Why Is Peter Singer Wrong

    • 1428 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Singer also states that it is easy for us to not donate money because we are fixated on the fact that other people are not doing it so why should I mentality. He shatters this mentality when he adds on to Bobs scenario. He says “suppose that there were more owners of priceless vintage cars —Carol, Dave, Emma, Fred and so on, down to Ziggy— all in exactly the same situation as Bob, with their own siding and their own switch, all sacrificing the child in order to preserve their own cherished car” (Singer 1). He than questions whether it changes how we see what Bob did in to being morally right.…

    • 1428 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Singer does not provide criteria to decide on what is morally comparable. Also, I will deny Singer’s conclusion that we are obligated to donate as much as we can to help end poverty. I will argue that donating to charity is supererogatory, which means that donating to charity is not obligated, but instead a positive thing to do. I will also deny his second premise which states that it is our moral responsibility to prevent bad things from happening to other people.…

    • 1246 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Singer sets the stage for his argument by his first premise, which he believes most would agree too, that human suffering and death due to a deficiency of food, shelter, and medical aide are bad (231). Secondly, he states that if it is in one’s power to prevent something bad from happening, without having to sacrifice anything of equal moral importance, we morally ought to do it. He implies that…

    • 1497 Words
    • 6 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
  • Superior Essays

    it’s your moral responsibility to save the child even though there are a lot of people around (Singer, 1972). From this analogy he argues that if everyone would relieve sufferings one way or another, the entire suffering population will be benefited. But, some people look at others and decide not to help. Singer argues that it’s still that person’s moral responsibility to help; now it becomes that one individual must contribute a larger amount due to the greediness of…

    • 1468 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    He does this first by presenting a drowning child situation that attempts to convince people to agree with his main moral principle that people are morally obligated to prevent bad things from happening that would not result in a loss of something of equal moral value. Singer claims that should a person agree that one is morally obligated to save a drowning child with the cost of dirtying their clothes, they therefore must also agree to donate their surplus of money until they themselves are in poverty, because doing so would not risk anything of equal moral value. Contrary to Singer’s argument, one might still be able to agree with his main moral principle without donating all of their money to help prevent poverty. It follows logically this main moral principle is equally applicable to other issues such as the environment, as the degradation of the environment is another bad thing that is preventable to the same extent as poverty. With critical analyzes of Singer’s argument, it may be concluded that one may consistently agree with the initial premises of Singer’s argument without agreement to his conclusion of morally obligatory…

    • 1478 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Peter Singer Argument

    • 1206 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The underlying goal of philosophy is to help humans seek the ultimate truth to the questions that orbit their knowledge for the meaning of existence. One question that many philosophers are challenging themselves to answer would be that of just how far individuals should go in order to provide relief for those who are suffering from poverty. After attaining a degree in bioethics, a professor by the name of Peter Singer recently ventured to provide the world with an answer to the question that had been protruding the minds of many philosophers. Singer claims, “The formula is simple: whatever money you’re spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away.” Although Singer’s argument proposes an idea that could be beneficial towards…

    • 1206 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved 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

    In Garrett Hardin’s “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor”, Hardin argues about “a world that must solve real and pressing problems of overpopulation, hunger and moral duty.” Hardin sets the stage by first giving his analysis on the structure of the world today by describing the earth as a lifeboat rather than a spaceship. He then dives into how population control, the tragedy of the commons and immigration are some of the main reasons for the problems we have today. Hardin argues that simply helping people and giving charitably will not solve these problems. Peter Singer, in “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” seemingly goes against Hardin by saying that “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby…

    • 994 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    When I save the child, I do it out of compassion and a value for life. Whether I am obligated to show this compassion for those abroad is debatable. However, it is much easier for me to sympathize with the drowning victim, who is directly in my vicinity, inundating the area with his pleas for life, and will most certainly die in my presence. This idea points toward the failure of Singer’s analogy. If saving the child comes from compassion and is not an obligation, then saving anyone is strictly your…

    • 2212 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Superior Essays