Daniel Merritt
Melinda Mansour
Philosophy 100-008
20/12/16
1422
Moral Obligations We as humans have moral obligations to help human beings less fortunate than us. Peter singer offers this approach in his essay and supports that us humans must help the needy by donating to charity because it is a moral obligation. I totally agree with this viewpoint because having people on the streets starving with no shelter is a bad sight. Humans have the ability to prevent starvation and suffering by donating to a good cause called charity. The opposing view of Garret Hardin says the rich and the few lucky poor should only live. He uses a lifeboat as an example explaining it can only hold up to so many people, and if it exceeds the capacity everyone …show more content…
The term supererogatory moral obligation means an act that would be beneficial to do, but won’t do any harm if not done (Pojman 718). Singer believes we should rethink this because we all should donate to charity. It should be a moral obligation. He says, “The view that numbers do make a difference can be made plausible if stated in this way: if everyone in circumstances like mine gave five pounds to the Bengal Relief Fund, there would be enough to provide food, shelter, and medical care for the refugees.” What Singer is trying to say is that if everyone that can donate would just donate, we would be able to solve many problems and provide the poor people with food, protection, and medical care. But many people don’t understand and just use a scapegoat. They say, “not everyone donates to charity, why should I?” This is the kind of thinking that goes on today which is why nothing is changing. Just by everyone donating this small amount it all adds up and can make a massive difference. Obviously not everyone is going to be able to donate 5 pounds. Many people are struggling to even pay their bills and donating to charity will actually hurt more than help them. This is refered to as marginal utility (Pojman 721). There is a solution to this problem though. It say’s for everyone to donate five pounds, but that does not mean someone can’t donate …show more content…
However, Garrett Hardin does not agree with donating to the poor. Garret Hardin argues, that our country is a lifeboat floating in the sea with rich people and some poor. It can only carry so much just as each rich nation does. For safety reasons the lifeboat should carry just below the carrying capacity incase of any emergencies like crop failure. If all the people are let on board the boat will capsize. If some poor are let on the boat to the capacity, the boat will sink sooner or later. The last option is to turn away all the poor and only the lucky few that are already on board will live (Pojman 724). Hardin’s bold point meaning, “Do not aid people of desperately poor, overpopulated countries” (Pojman 724). Some people believe this lifeboat theory, however it doesn’t seem to make that much sense to me. First of all there have been many debates that by 2010 the world population will be so great that we will all die of starvation. It’s 2016 now and we are still here with plenty of food to go around. Not donating to charities because there are a so-called number of people that can live in a country is just terrible. We are going to let people die because the rich want to have all the resources they can possibly have just doesn’t make any sense to me. If the one day were to come where all the food were to run out than at least we tried to save everyone we possibly could. I
Melinda Mansour
Philosophy 100-008
20/12/16
1422
Moral Obligations We as humans have moral obligations to help human beings less fortunate than us. Peter singer offers this approach in his essay and supports that us humans must help the needy by donating to charity because it is a moral obligation. I totally agree with this viewpoint because having people on the streets starving with no shelter is a bad sight. Humans have the ability to prevent starvation and suffering by donating to a good cause called charity. The opposing view of Garret Hardin says the rich and the few lucky poor should only live. He uses a lifeboat as an example explaining it can only hold up to so many people, and if it exceeds the capacity everyone …show more content…
The term supererogatory moral obligation means an act that would be beneficial to do, but won’t do any harm if not done (Pojman 718). Singer believes we should rethink this because we all should donate to charity. It should be a moral obligation. He says, “The view that numbers do make a difference can be made plausible if stated in this way: if everyone in circumstances like mine gave five pounds to the Bengal Relief Fund, there would be enough to provide food, shelter, and medical care for the refugees.” What Singer is trying to say is that if everyone that can donate would just donate, we would be able to solve many problems and provide the poor people with food, protection, and medical care. But many people don’t understand and just use a scapegoat. They say, “not everyone donates to charity, why should I?” This is the kind of thinking that goes on today which is why nothing is changing. Just by everyone donating this small amount it all adds up and can make a massive difference. Obviously not everyone is going to be able to donate 5 pounds. Many people are struggling to even pay their bills and donating to charity will actually hurt more than help them. This is refered to as marginal utility (Pojman 721). There is a solution to this problem though. It say’s for everyone to donate five pounds, but that does not mean someone can’t donate …show more content…
However, Garrett Hardin does not agree with donating to the poor. Garret Hardin argues, that our country is a lifeboat floating in the sea with rich people and some poor. It can only carry so much just as each rich nation does. For safety reasons the lifeboat should carry just below the carrying capacity incase of any emergencies like crop failure. If all the people are let on board the boat will capsize. If some poor are let on the boat to the capacity, the boat will sink sooner or later. The last option is to turn away all the poor and only the lucky few that are already on board will live (Pojman 724). Hardin’s bold point meaning, “Do not aid people of desperately poor, overpopulated countries” (Pojman 724). Some people believe this lifeboat theory, however it doesn’t seem to make that much sense to me. First of all there have been many debates that by 2010 the world population will be so great that we will all die of starvation. It’s 2016 now and we are still here with plenty of food to go around. Not donating to charities because there are a so-called number of people that can live in a country is just terrible. We are going to let people die because the rich want to have all the resources they can possibly have just doesn’t make any sense to me. If the one day were to come where all the food were to run out than at least we tried to save everyone we possibly could. I