Charity Is Open Mindedness That Fulfills God 's Commandment That Requires Learning And Understands Others.

How Durning and Skinner Proved That Hardin’s Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor Does Not Float

This paper explores Peter Singer’s argument, in Famine, Affluence, and Morality, that we have morally required obligations to those in need. The explanation of his argument and conclusion, if accepted, would dictate changes to our lifestyle as well as our conceptions of duty and charity, and would be particularly demanding of the affluent. In response to the central case presented by Singer, John Kekes offers his version, which he labels the and points out some objections. Revisions of the principle provide some response to the objections, but raise additional problems. Yet, in the end, the revisions provide support for Singer’s basic argument that, in some way, we ought to help those in need.

The concept of compassion and generosity through resource sharing in essence establish themselves onto many of the world’s major religions, political systems, and moral foundations. Most would agree with the Golden Rule, “Do to others what you want them to do to you.” (Matthew 7:12) as a common moral adage suggests, or that “Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter-when you see the naked, to clothe them, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?” (Isaiah 58:7). Although many would agree that compassion and generosity through resource sharing is just, is it realistic? Garrett Hardin in his essay “Lifeboat Ethics” argues that not only is resource sharing is unrealistic, but that it is also unfavorable since it stretches the few limited resources available to the point of ruin. He does this through rhetoric, or the use of logos, ethos, and pathos. In this essay, we will define logos, ethos, and pathos, analyze how Hardin’s uses these rhetorical appeals in his essay, and conclude how effective he was using these appeals to persuade his audience.

Another example of how altruism can be viewed in today’s society can be seen in the works of Mother Teresa and her plethora of altruistic acts throughout the globe. Although her focus was in India where she persued her novitiate (training), her organization has opened over 500 centers around the world helping the dying and the destitute (Moore 2002, pg. x). She took in the “untouchables” of society and gave them care and made sure that they were comfortable. Mother Teresa is often used as the benchmark when determining whether a selfless act is truly altruistic.

Everyone should have the right to live a stable life with all the necessary essentials, which include food, shelter, and medical care. Unfortunately, not every individual in our world has access to either one or all of these essential life elements. In Peter Singer’s essay, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, Singer emphasizes the importance of giving back to those who are less fortunate. Singer in particular claims that those who are affluent individuals should feel morally obligated to donate to humanitarian causes.

They come to realize that a system of welfare that makes no moral judgments in allocating economic rewards promotes antisocial egotism. The spiritual impoverishment of the population seems to them worse than anything they have ever known in their own countries. And what they see is all the worse, of course, because it should be so much better. The wealth that enables everyone effortlessly to have enough food should be liberating, not imprisoning. Instead, it has created a large caste of people for whom life is, in effect, a limbo in which they have nothing to hope for and nothing to fear, nothing to gain and nothing to lose. It is a life emptied of meaning (Dalrymple, 6).

Peter Singer’s central idea focuses around how grim death and suffering from lack of food, shelter and medical care really is. He further argues that if we can prevent something this unfortunate from happening, without sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought to do it. In other words, as privileged citizens, we ought to prevent all of the death and suffering that we can from lack of food, shelter and medical care from happening by giving our money and resources to charity (Chao, 2016, in-class discussion). In the terms of this argument, death and suffering from poverty are preventable with the

From looking at this contextually, we are able to look at this charity in relation to the ideas of liberation theology. This concept became very popular throughout history, giving a main focus to the actions of Christians in a community to those who are treated wrongly, not however, by a fault of their own but the structural sin of where they

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.

Peter Singer famine relief argument, demonstrates big moral questions to our old-fashioned notions of giving towards charity. Human beings have a moral obligation to donate more resources to those who are in need. (Singer, p 235).

We will not take another glance at that homeless person sitting on the side of the road, even though they are in a similar situation as those directly affected by Hurricane Harvey. All we have learned from this event was how to show compassion. Jim was a compassionate person, because even prior to the storm he had the character trait of caring and compassion. The rest of the world on the other hand, we blindly ignore the suffering of those around us until it directly affects us. To be compassionate is to portray it in our day to day lives. Whether it is simply giving that homeless person a few coins, or giving company to someone who is alone. That homeless person might be able to purchase a meal today, and that person who is lonely might make a new

Although our current way of life is in need of a revision in order to help others in need, I do not believe in a drastic revision as today’s societies already send aid to other countries and already have an altruistic mindset. However, the issue that remains is that today’s societies and people don’t

Morality is one of the most fascinating aspects of humanity. It is often treated as the one trait that ultimately makes us superior to animals, and yet there is no agreed-upon single moral code. Questions of morality always lead to heated debates and passionate discussions, because every individual has their own values and ethics. Controversy often arises when the topic of the debate concerns inequality and injustice, such as between the rich and the poor. Recently, this type of discussion emerged because of a philosopher called Peter Singer, and book he published. In this paper, I will agree with Singer and argue that in order to live a moral life, one should donate funds to aid agencies, however only when the means are comfortably available.

Certainly, the world presented by Singer (1972) differs considerably from the real order of things. In the real world, charity is not considered as a moral duty. Rather, it is a voluntary act of generosity, which is subject to public approval and praise. This position favors many society members, who can use charity as an instrument of manipulation to achieve their own purposes. Meanwhile, a consensus is emerging that charity is a negative phenomenon, which does not allow changing the situation from within. According to BBC (n.d.), charity deals with the symptoms, rather than causes, of poverty and famines. It

Helping people is a noble thing to do especially when it comes to the application of natural justice, where human beings help those who are suffering. There is always a hidden intention in every action that is obscured by the notion of philanthropy. Returned favors expectation might not be the ultimate intention as to why people may perform an act (Michael, 1978). However, it will be illogical to say that these intentions were