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
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