Poverty, a burden carried by countless human from all over the globe. What comes along with poverty comparable to a curse are the famines, sickness, conflicts, and corruption, nonetheless, this does not mean masses in poverty must suffer all these ordeals. Poverty is a relative term. To be under the poverty line in a developed nation would be vastly different from in an underdeveloped nation. Let us use Canada as an example, in comparison to a third world country; Kenya, Africa. Though the term poverty can be used in both situations, a person living under the poverty line in Canada would be superior in terms of living environment, sickness, and conflict; in contrast to the example of Kenya, Africa given above, the poverty line would be substantially
…show more content…
While sickness may ravage the country there are also multitudes of other dangerous and unwanted conditions; conflict, and I do not mean an insignificant fight rivalling a late night brawl, but the devastation of war over money, power, and territory. Above all study show that one in four African are malnourished and starving as of 2014 ("World Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics by WHES"), yet people in developed nation just dispose of food like nothing is out of the ordinary. From this may arise the question, should we put down our silver spoons and reach out from our lavish bubble to support those less fortunate than us? On the other hand, having the ability to help others is sovereignty, as cliché as it may sound; with great power comes great responsibility, and one must weigh the cons and pros before hastily acting. Therefore one must ask themselves is the option to aid the impoverished truly the best choice of action one can …show more content…
Arthur believes we deserve the fruits of our labours instead of giving them away, he also dubs Singers' idea of preventing any wrong within our power, without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance the "greater moral evil rule" (Sommers 381). Arthur says the moral code Singer supplies is not practical, which in turn means it would not be rational for us human to follow, considering only maybe a hand full of people live by the greater moral evil rule, than to the masses that would rather support a more practical moral code. The greater moral evil rule would seem more fitting to an angel than of a human, which is completely understandable when your luxuries are at stake (Sommers 386). Human are selfish beings, 9/10 our actions are of self-gain or for a lack of a better word; greed. There are not an abundance of notions you would agree upon if nothing were to gain from it, unless under duress or of other circumstances. If you choose to follow Singers' moral code so be it, but Arthur supports his criticism by revealing a flaw in the code. All human can help each other by giving away or allowing others to exploit your body to remedy whatever ails them, we can travel the saint route by providing a man who is about to perish your second kidney, or to maybe give an eye to a man who was born blind, in doing so from a utilitarian stand point your actions would
While sickness may ravage the country there are also multitudes of other dangerous and unwanted conditions; conflict, and I do not mean an insignificant fight rivalling a late night brawl, but the devastation of war over money, power, and territory. Above all study show that one in four African are malnourished and starving as of 2014 ("World Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics by WHES"), yet people in developed nation just dispose of food like nothing is out of the ordinary. From this may arise the question, should we put down our silver spoons and reach out from our lavish bubble to support those less fortunate than us? On the other hand, having the ability to help others is sovereignty, as cliché as it may sound; with great power comes great responsibility, and one must weigh the cons and pros before hastily acting. Therefore one must ask themselves is the option to aid the impoverished truly the best choice of action one can …show more content…
Arthur believes we deserve the fruits of our labours instead of giving them away, he also dubs Singers' idea of preventing any wrong within our power, without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance the "greater moral evil rule" (Sommers 381). Arthur says the moral code Singer supplies is not practical, which in turn means it would not be rational for us human to follow, considering only maybe a hand full of people live by the greater moral evil rule, than to the masses that would rather support a more practical moral code. The greater moral evil rule would seem more fitting to an angel than of a human, which is completely understandable when your luxuries are at stake (Sommers 386). Human are selfish beings, 9/10 our actions are of self-gain or for a lack of a better word; greed. There are not an abundance of notions you would agree upon if nothing were to gain from it, unless under duress or of other circumstances. If you choose to follow Singers' moral code so be it, but Arthur supports his criticism by revealing a flaw in the code. All human can help each other by giving away or allowing others to exploit your body to remedy whatever ails them, we can travel the saint route by providing a man who is about to perish your second kidney, or to maybe give an eye to a man who was born blind, in doing so from a utilitarian stand point your actions would