Argument Essay: Philosopher Vs. Singer

The question of our responsibility to alleviate world hunger is one that has been approached from several ethical directions. The philosophies range from strict utilitarian Peter Singers General Principle, which demands full marginality, to philosophies that argue the individual has no responsibility to aid in relief at all, in fact, an obligation not to, as Garret Hardin holds. Hardin goes as far as to endorse population control in his theories, strongly invoking Darwinism – survival of the fittest. Hardin’s position would hardly be a compelling argument against Singer’s principle as it offers no option but to do nothing at all. Fair cases against Singer can be made through more relaxed theories. Philosopher, John Arthur, offers just such …show more content…
If we can use our bodies - the scenario: giving a kidney to a dying patient in need of a transplant or donating an eye so a blind can see, even if it causes some amount of lesser harm to us than the amount of good it does for those in need, we should. The “greater moral evil rule” – the terminology Arthur uses to reference Singer’s General Principle - requires that we follow thru with that action. Arthur objects with the assertion that it is obvious that our moral code does not require us to violate our own bodies in beneficence of other. We have a right to our bodies. Here we see one illustration of how Arthur freely offers a method of failure for Singer’s …show more content…
Arthur makes a distinction between what our absolute moral obligations are and those that have positive moral value, but are not required of us. I find the same flaw with force that Arthur sees in Singer’s General Principle. The “greater moral evil rule” would require a substantial redistribution of the planet 's wealth. His argument of personal freedom says that to force people to feed others is not charity but the commission of another unethical act, stealing. Yes, we are giving for the benefit of hunger relief, but by what action? If we must forcefully take from one to benefit another, has a basic injustice not been