Feeding The Hungry Narveson Analysis

In the article, Feeding the Hungry, Narveson answers the general questions about the dif-ferent types of moral questions that we have about starving. Consequently, the basic question of this article that Narveson argues, is whether the hungry have a positive right to be fed (243). He elaborates that we do have a right to feed them, but they also have a negative right to be fed (243). Nevertheless, he explains whether feeding the hungry is an act of justice or charity. Throughout this article, he establishes a distinction between justice and charity. He defines the demands of justice as something that could be enforced. In his perspective, charity is defined as something that, “comes ‘from the heart’: charity means, roughly, caring …show more content…
There are some countries which,” drive people forced off their land, burn their crops, and at a minimum steal it from the peasantry” (242). Some of the countries such as Somalia and Ethiopia are the ones that go through these cri-ses. These governments have driven people off their land forcibly, burned their crops, and stole it from the peasants (242). The governments in these countries have prevented aid from Western countries from getting to people that are in need of these incentives. Even if these incentives are given to people, they don’t meet the demands of the starving people in those countries. In Bang-ladesh, whenever a huge flood strikes the country, there will be short-term problems that will arise and the agencies are great at responding to these crises. However, most of these organiza-tions that provide aid to people in these crises receive little or no support from the government. Some organizations such as the American Peace Corps and CUSO consist of enthusiastic volun-teers that go to third-world countries to help people in various ways (242). But most of these or-ganizations do not succeed because they do not receive aid from the community at-large. Nar-veson is trying to argue that most of all the starvation is due to corruption caused by the …show more content…
The Ethics of the Hair Shirt is a principle exercised that is used to benefit the others, and keep doing this until we become poor as the people whose poverty you are supposed to be lifting (238). His view on the Ethics of the Hair Shirt, is, “we benefit others, at the expense of yourself” (238), these policies are consistently developed until we become as miserable as the suffering of the poor that we are supposed to be uplifting. Nar-veson thinks that we should respond negatively to this view, because the rule which states that neither the rich nor poor should be enslaved by others is better (238). Narveson complains that this view is wrong because the wealthy don’t have a right to force the wealthy to give or spend their wealth on the ones on that are