Analysis Of J. David Velleman's Fighting Famine

John Arthur presented a moderate view, more in line with our current behavior, that recognizes an individual’s entitlement to resources as an excuse against any moral requirement to give them away. I will briefly present these entitlements, and explain why they can’t justify our refusal to help and aid in famine relief.

Notably he states “neither our distance from a preventable evil nor the number of other people who, in respect to that evil, are in the same situation as we are, lessens our obligation to mitigate or prevent that evil.” This means it doesn’t matter whether I help someone close to me or someone a couple miles away from me, there is no moral difference. Certainly if a person next to me needs assistance I would be able to help since they’re next to me but that statement doesn’t prove that I need to help someone miles away from me. He then gives a scenario of a child drowning in a pool and how as a person who witnessed that, you’d help the child. You ended up saving this kid without any harm done to

Nowadays, hunger is not only linked with food it is also related to the family income level, also, it represents the feeling of starving to the time that it is disturbing or even frustrating. Oxford dictionary define hunger as “A feeling of discomfort or weakness caused by lack of food, coupled with the desire to eat.” Indeed, most people would admit that when someone is starving, they are not performing to their absolute potential. This sense of resentment and anger when one is craving for food is prompted by a decline in the body’s blood- glucose level. In this case if the level declines, the human brain will recognize it as a threatening situation. The leading cause of hunger among

Ones that are suffering from this are living in country that is still globally and economically being worked on. In other words, it's hard to plant crops in certain areas because there is no guarantee that it will grow. People suffer more from hunger than they do diseases ("CRS.). Logically it should be the other way around because of what a deadly disease like AIDS can do to you, but it's simply because they have nothing to eat. Lots of newborn babies are born unhealthy because the lack of nutrition the mothers got. It's hard to imagine that food is the major cause of deaths today.

Hunger can cause the human body to make conclusions that they would not have on a full stomach. In Night by Elie Wiesel, he proves the point numerous times. Elie among others loses sight of his ethics due to human nature, needing food. During the Holocaust, the prisoners in concentration camps would risk their lives for an extra crust of bread or ration of soup. The captives of the Holocaust had to acclimate to their surroundings and do anything they could for food. The need for energy can cause a human to make ignorant decisions, thus allowing for a loss of their personal values.

between poor and rich just getting bigger and bigger. If you are poor you can’t afford enough food which means you can’t work as much since you do not have any energy. While the rich can afford more food, have more energy, can work more and will have higher and higher income. This is how the gap between poor and rich improves and never stops. However, Banjerjee and Duflo studied a household’s habits in Udaipur, India. They found that a typical poor household could afford thirty percent more food to buy, if they cut their alcohol and tobacco spending. The poor have many choices, but they decide to stay with the excitement. Indians’ children usually suffer from low-fat index. What can be done to stop starvation in the world?

In the reading, “Feeding the Hungry” by Jan Narveson the author argues that as a human race we are not morally obligated to help out and feed the poor (514). Furthermore, the author defends in this view by discussing a variety of topics and certain examples to defend his view. These topics talk about how people are not morally obligated to help other people. One, of the main points the author tries to argue is that people that are primarily focused around charity do not pay attention to help their lives (512). Another, example the author talks about how when we go to these third-world countries we are destroying their culture and more than likely or not we are not even to really help them. Lastly, the only time the author feels like were morally

In the article, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, Pete Singer, a Utilitarian, argues that citizens in affluent countries such as the United States have a moral obligation to give up as much as they can for famine relief. Singer’s contention in his article is that the way we morally conduct ourselves ought to be reappraised. (Singer, 230). I Singer’s argument, and in this paper, I will examine the distinction between duty and charity, compare both deontological and consequential theories of ethics, and address Immanuel Kant and Pete Singer’s similarities and their utilitarian resolution to such problems. I will conclude how we have a moral duty to relieve suffering in the world, and why it is wrong if we abstain from our moral obligation.

Canada has also adopted the practice of matching every dollar donated to Canadian charities in the fight against famine. Furthermore, the state of Canada has enthusiastically supported initiatives of its citizens to combat famines. The 30 Hour Famine, which began in Canada, is an event where young people commit to deny themselves food for 30 hours. It’s now a global event and occurs every year, resulting in hundreds of thousands of youths taking part in their own 'Famine' events in places around the world like Australia, Hong Kong, Taiwan and the United States. Over the years, the 30 Hour Famine has allowed students to help fund thousands of development and emergency response projects related to famines around the world.

Most people are fortunate enough to have three, healthful meals every day. Although, this is not typical for everyone in America. 1 in 6 people in America battle hunger every day. A majority of these people have children to care for. Children who struggle with hunger are more likely to have academic or behavioral problems. Typically, parents with children often encounter some form of unemployment at some point. Sadly, because of these exasperating issues up to 5,000 people starve to death each year.

One of the major problem confronting the world nowadays is famine. With the hostilities to find and to devour food, people are no longer free to pursue higher desires or to ponder justice amongst equals, a great deal less rights. Scholars like Onora O'Neill and Peter Singer try to join the problem of the world's famine trouble to one's moral code of ethics. In this paper, I will describe O'Neill's connection between Kantian ethics and famine, the variations she attracts between Kantian ethics and utilitarianism, and give an explanation for Singer's trust that people have sturdy utilitarian duties toward the problem.

Hunger is caused by many events, including the poverty trap, natural disasters, war, poor agricultural infrastructure, and over-exploitation of the environment.

The most fundamental symptom of famine is hunger. Hunger is all consuming; it destroys through organ shutdown, it eats the flesh of the living leaving a walking skeleton, it allows disease to ravage the body and when prolonged, it alters the human psyche to an unrecognisable point (Mukerjee J. S., 2011, p. 195; Mukerjee M. , 2010). When

Many who live in the United States are fortunate enough to have shelter, food, access to clean water, and other basic necessities. We may live in a secure life full of comfort and ease, but we cannot ignore the local and global issues that surround us. Poverty, starvation, climate change, and lack of health care are just a few of the problems that exist in the United States and in other places worldwide. In his novel, The Most Good You Can Do, ethicist Peter Singer addresses these issues and suggests that they can be mitigated by applying utilitarianism as a foundation to give back to others. He believes that during our lifetime, we should focus our time and money on fighting poverty and world hunger and thereby practice what he calls effective altruism. In the following, I will refute Singer’s utilitarian approach to doing the most good by highlighting its demands, overemphasis on consequences, and lack of autonomy. Ultimately, I will argue that Kantianism is a more suitable theory to apply to achieve this goal and that we should direct our attention and obligations to issues other than starvation.

World hunger will be one of the most serious problems that the humanity will be facing if we will continue to ignore it. Basically, when there is lack of production in food it will result to starvation and famine if it gets worst. There are many things that can contribute with the aggravation of world hunger.