Does The Bible Establish A Moral Dilemma?

There are times whenever someone you know just needs assistance and since they are your friends you should help them out. Giving to charity and even helping strangers in need is what Christ calls us to do because some people were not fortunate enough to have the same resources that you were. God does not condemn wealthy individuals since it is considered a blessing, but states that we should help out the needy and less fortunate and help relieve poverty. As stated on page 44 “After the commitment to one’s spouse(s) and family, the Old Testament makes it clear that God’s people have a special responsibility for others, specifically the widow, the orphan, the poor, and the oppressed and the stranger,” (Stapleford, 2015). People sin because we were all born from sin, but God does not like whenever a person neglects the poor and less

money to give but was concerned with his own well being instead of others telling them to send the

(Luke 10:25-37). Jesus taught this so that Christians would treat everyone the way that they would want to be treated. In Luke 6:20-26, Jesus said. “That the poor were special to him and that their suffering would be rewarded in heaven.” He also went on to say, “The rich who ignored the suffering of the poor would be punished.” One of Jesus’ most important teachings on poverty was in Matthew 25:31-46. To the affect Jesus said “Whenever you help anyone in need you are helping me.” Christians believe that when they help someone they are helping Jesus and that they will be rewarded for it. These are the main Christian teachings on wealth and poverty.

In his article Rich and Poor, Peter Singer argues that we have a moral obligation to give assistance to people in absolute poverty. He derived this conclusion from three premises. The first states that if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we ought to it. The second premise is that absolute poverty is a bad thing. The third premise is that we are able to alleviate some portion of absolute poverty without giving up anything of comparable moral significance. To illustrate the urgency of our duty to assist the poor, he believes that in a case where we happen to walk pass a child drowning in a shallow pond, the vast majority of people would agree that it would be seriously morally wrong to not rescue the child. Connecting this scenario to Singer’s argument, we can say it is seriously morally wrong to not assist the poor because the lives of these people in need are of greater moral importance than the excess income we would otherwise spend on luxury goods. Thus, Singer is correct in saying that we have a moral obligation to assist the poor, and that failing to do so is equally as morally wrong as failing to rescue the drowning child.

He does not have any concern about if they are helping or have received information that will help them in their daily walk with God. Being poor is not what he believes in, even though one of his requirements is to be poor. He is a beggar and

You give them something to eat.” (Matthew Ch. 14:16) Christians believe in a final judgment day when God will judge them upon their actions. If they have led a ‘good’ life they will be rewarded with eternity in heaven with God, where as those who led a ‘bad’ life will be punished with an eternity in hell. Jesus speaks of helping the poor because it is what God asks of you and not because you want praise from your fellow men.

Explanation: Peter Singer’s argument about global poverty can be broken down into three distinct steps. The first is easily accepted. Nearly everyone can agree that starvation, lack of shelter and a scarcity of medical care is a bad thing. His next is also frequently acknowledged. If we are able to donate without sacrificing anything morally significant we morally ought to do so. However, it’s Singer’s third ideal where he loses most people, including myself. In his third premise he states that by donating to aid agencies, we can prevent suffering from lack of food, shelter and medical care without sacrificing anything morally significant. But that arises the question. What is considered morally significant? Moral significance varies from one person to another making it nearly impossible to determine a universal constant everyone can follow. Along with that, this premise speaks entirely towards a financial donation of giving money to aid agencies. This again raises speculation and concern as to how much money is morally significant to give away from one person to another.

In the article “The Singer Solution to World Hunger”, Singer displays several analogical situations to present his utilitarian view that one should donate money to the poor instead of spending on selfish indulgences. The question is, to what point should someone spend money on others for situations they did not create such as world hunger and poverty? One should not be considered morally wrong for not donating. In utilitarianism one has to maximize the happiness for everyone, not in just one individual.

Peter Singer, a prominent moral philosopher and public intellectual, has written at length about many ethical issues. He subscribes to utilitarianism, which is the position that the best moral action is that which maximizes the well-being of conscious entities; this view is made apparent through his writings. In his essay What Should a Billionaire Give—and What Should You? Singer presents the idea that although the rich are capable of mitigating extreme poverty, there has been little improvement for the poorest 10 percent of the world’s population. He maintains that all life is equal and, therefore, saving the lives of the poor is a moral imperative for those who can afford to. “We are far from acting in accordance to that belief,”

Peter Singer is an Australian moral philosopher most known for his book titled “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” in which he talks about just that. One of his biggest and the first of his premises is our obligation to assist if it is within our means to avoid something bad without giving up something of moral consequence. This means that it is not morally permissible to rob a bank to assist those in need just because you have the means to rob a bank. It simply means when thinking about purchasing another item of clothing you should ask yourself if it is necessary. If the answer is no—which it will most likely be—that money is to go towards someone who’s life who depends on it. This, then, is within your means without giving up something of

A night after the football game while John was heading through the parking lot he found a beggar who was asking for money to buy food. John considered giving money to the beggar, but decided not to give him the money. This essay is going to point out concepts that could have affected John's reasoning. First the concept will be introduced. Then the concept will be defined.

I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed the beginning story of the “James” Haiti Relief Organization (p.1817-1821). After reading this passage, I took a moment to ask myself what would I do in such a case as this. Would I offer the bribe, even though it goes completely against scripture to save those in need? I would really have to seek God on this because my actions are a representation of Christ to others and I would not want to lead anyone astray because I was not in the will of God. After much personal reflection I realize I predominately follow the “relational motif” of Christian Ethics, which involves “the more immediate and direct leading of God” (p. 1837). This story made me question would God rather I strictly follow the Bible or ask him personally for guidance if my actions counter his teachings?

     Blessed are the merciful, for they shall see God. How can someone who has so much not even spare one can of food for someone who has none. Is it fair for all of us to have so much and some people have nothing? What is there to do? We need to be able to give some of what we have to those people. It is not right to have so much when your neighbor is starving. Be merciful and give to someone who has none. As a high school sophomore I do not believe it is fair. I try to help in any way I can even if it is just one can of food I know I can spare it because there are probably five more of the same thing in the closet. So if everyone just gave one thing it will make a bigger difference then

To many individuals, morality and religion are two related but distinct ideas. To be specific, morality consists of principles set by societal norms concerning the distinction between right and wrong and good and bad behaviour among persons. Alternatively, religion involves the relationship between human beings and a transcendent reality or a superhuman controlling power, God. In many societies in the past and present, the idea of God is used to help reinforce moral codes as valuable and vital through rituals and methods of presenting the teachings of God. By many, religion is used to instil fear

Peter Singer said; “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it” (Famine, Affluence, and Morality). As human beings, we have a moral compulsion to help other people, despite the verity that they may be strangers, especially when whatever type of aid we may render can in no approach have a more significant consequence on our own life.