Moral Duty?

In a piece by Peter Singer entitled, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Singer argues that Americans should prevent atrocious situations to arise but, we also should not sacrifice something of equal importance while doing so. Moreover, in the piece by John Arthur, “World Hunger and Moral Obligation: The Case Against Singer,” Arthur disagrees with Singer; he believes that we should help the poverty-stricken but, it is not morally imperative to do so.

In Peter Singer’s article, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, he proposes the question: “What are the moral implications of a situation like the one in Bengal (230)?” In order to answer this question Singer presents at least two arguments which involve what one ought to do and the moral consequences of not acting or pursuing our moral obligations. His first and central conclusion is that we “ought” to behave in such a way as to decrease suffering and death as a result of lack of food, shelter and medical care. Assuming that the aforementioned events are “bad” Peter singer argues that we are morally obligated to help “relieve great suffering of the sort that occurs as a result of famine or other disasters” as long as “we can without sacrificing something else of comparable moral importance” (238). In fact, he goes so far as to present an additional conclusion that not acting or pursuing our moral obligation to help is unjustifiable and wrong and we must then change our moral schema about the obligations we have to others.

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

It is not the responsibility of individuals to help their fellow man. Our resources are dwindling, and there’s no room to share. People and countries should learn to mend their own ways, and with reliance on others for aid, they won’t be able to do that.

Should America be morally obligated to give foreign aid with such problems within its own borders? According to www.state.gov under the foreign assistance budget tab, the United States is slotted in 2015 for $46.2 billion. That is 1% of the budget. That aid goes to assisting world hunger, helping governments form a democratic government, as well military training and weapons. In a quote by Secretary Kerry (Apr. 8): "When you consider that the American people pay just one penny of every tax dollar for the 46.2 billion in this request ... when it comes to the State Department and USAID, taxpayers are getting an extraordinary return on their investment.” Is it wrong to assist mankind? No. Should we focus first on our own people with the statistics given previously? Yes. Imagine what the citizens of the United States could give to the world if we were well fed leading to better health, formally educated, and had the food security to benefit others across the

Jimmy carter once said, "We know that a peaceful world cannot long exist, one-third rich and two-thirds hungry." With the world now more interconnected than ever there might be a solution to world hunger by distribution of wealth. Peter Singer, in his article titled, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, takes this concept of unity that we have on a global scale and tries to tackle the issue of world hunger. Before we dive into the article we will focus on utilitarianism to help us understand his perspective better. Following, we will analyze Singer and his theory, by strongly arguing that famine should be given moral worth. A stance is made that if you are aware of suffering that is going on elsewhere than it is your responsibility to do something about it. He points out that it doesn’t matter if anyone else is helping nor does it matter the distance. Singer does make some good points, however, these do not come without objections.

The theory that I find true to the true nature of moral responsibility and its relation to human freedom and determinism would be compatibilism. Compatibilism is the claim that we are both determined and that we have moral responsibility (Lawhead 120).

Have you ever thought why it’s good to help starving people in the world? No? Well, the first thing is.. Do you know how many people die of starvation each year? Well, at least 9 million people die of starvation each year worldwide. Also, at least 1 child dies of starvation each 10 seconds of your day. Wouldn't you want to save starving people in the world that need to be fed and cared?

Clearly, there are a not too bad bit of people out there who exhibit their attentiveness to those in need.Consider everyone who is worrying over when they will get their next supper. The issue that is occurring as of now ought to be revealed to the world. Everyone needs to acknowledge what is happening specifically before them. This can at no time later on be maintained a strategic distance from the stunned, the food ought to be showed up. There are many ventures that are directly alleviating the world desiring issues. Regardless, we can't say that the expression "world" fuses other countries moreover. Many individuals envision that people outside of made countries need most of the genourous support. This is not

There are hungry children right here in the USA and some may even be living in your very own neighborhood. When a child is properly fed they are in a better position to grow, learn and be motivated to reach their full potential. Can you imagine your own child going hungry? I know that I couldn't and while I may not understand why it's such a problem here in the US, the fact remains that it does happen. However we can do something about it and Cuddle+Kind has come up with a great solution. Call it a win-win

In conclusion, hunger in America is at an all time high due to poverty and the economy. The increasingly high number of starving children has gone up over the past years and needs to be stopped. There are government programs set up to help stop hunger in American, such as, SNAP Food Stamps and WIC. We can get involved by volunteering with Feeding America or other non-for-profit organizations set for feeding the hungry. Food donations and monetary donations have always been a great way to help out for those who don’t have the time to donate.

The United States does not have an obligation to help poor countries. Many believe that the U.S. has a moral or ethical obligation to assist countries who need it. The United States is viewed as the police of the world, defender of democracy, and body of countries who it chooses to align with. When it is said that the U.S. has an “ethical obligation” the definition of those terms vary from person to person. No one is obligated to do anything, people feel obligated based on their own values and beliefs. Although the U.S. has a high gross

Sadly, though we have failed to aid ourselves and bring an end to our own country's problem. Instead of feeding the needy here in the U.S., we continue to send food to other countries. This is not a bad thing. However, we as Americans need to take care of ourselves, as well as others.

World hunger has been affecting many people around the world, domestically and internationally, More significantly, internationally. Wellman and Cohen discuss the moral obligation one has to contribute money in order to help dissolve the cause. Wellman argues we do have a moral duty and that we should contribute money in order to help people internationally have money. Where Cohen argues there should be no moral duty to do so but as a virtuous act and we equally contribute to causes domestically. Personally, world hunger needs to be fixed and I do believe we have a moral obligation to help contribute to the cause, but my approach to fixing the problem includes more definition

For example; the United States itself and other nations such as Somalia and Congo continue to have people with no shelter over their head and those with no food to eat, regardless of how hard some may strive to make ends meet, they are still in poverty. As those more auspicious, we should consider it as a moral obligation to assist those people who are less fortunate, be it those in the same nation as us or those farther away.