My Moral Obligation

Everyone has a dream or something they want to follow in life. Some want material gain while others want to help as many people as they can. I’m not saying wanting material gain is a bad thing, but what I am saying is that for me, money is not the number one concern when my dream is to help others. My hunger to help others only grows by the day. Because of what’s going on in the world we live in today, I believe that it is important that those who are less fortunate than others have the assistance they need to get to an even playing field, health-wise, with others.

Therefore, to give up one’s luxuries so that less fortunate human beings can actually acquire necessities is a fair and simple request. Humans don’t need luxuries such as frivolous electronics and excessive clothes and accessories. However, humans do need food, shelter and other basic amenities. The fact that so many people have both necessities and luxuries while others have neither is a shocking reality that needs to be changed.

In the video, Homeless: The Motel Kids in Orange County, I was shocked by the fact that many unfortunate families came from the richest counties. Initially, I assumed that poor families came from places where the county was in bad shape. Also, I was in awe with the reason why one family remained in Orange County and how the families lived every day. Personally, I liked the mother’s response when she was asked if the living environment was damaging for Rudee and the mother said it doesn’t matter where you live, if you live in the ghetto, you don’t have to act like it. Rudee’s mother believes they’ll make it because they’re survivors. I admire the mother’s mentality because it reminded me of my father’s upbringing with no electricity and how

I am only thinking about myself and have been conditioned by society that the poor are beneath me. Just as hooks states in her book, “Society is telling them that poverty and nihilism are one and the same. If they cannot escape poverty, then they have no choice but to drown in the image of a life that is valueless” (hooks, 198), we have been taught by society to believe that poverty and nihilism are synonymous, but this is not true. Just as it takes a village to raise a child, I believe it takes a nation to resolve the issue of poverty. Our society needs to dig deep to reignite the morals that generations in the past taught us; sharing our resources, whether monetarily or charitably, through understanding, kindness and generosity to those less fortunate. We all have to be ready to share liberally and recognize the fact that there are those who struggle and deserve attention paid to their struggles. By helping others who have not, we keep our humanity intact and maintain our ability to empathize and show compassion towards others. Our culture is based on working together and helping our neighbors. We need to stop considering the poor invisible and instead take personal steps to keep our communities thriving via good will towards others, and lending a helping hand. The poor, just as our environment, are our responsibility, and the sharing of resources is crucial to bringing an individual from poverty to a more

The Denver community is working to help alleviate this cycle of poverty from their community. It was great to see that even though this is a huge problem in Denver they are taking steps, however small in light of the current situation, to improve their community. On our trip, we worked with DenUM Urban Ministries which is one such place trying to educate the public and help give aid to those who are homeless. Through this program, our group had the opportunity to learn about homelessness through hands-on activities. Showing the logistics of what poverty looks like on a personal level in a families finances and the tough choices

Philip shares with me his personal experiences working with the individuals who found themselves living on the streets during the years of 1986-1996. He explains why eventually he dealt solely with those individuals who would not go in to the missions and shelters or even accept food from the mobile soup wagons. Philip relives the moment that he first realized that houseless people were not in their current situation because of a life misled or because they were lazy or criminal, as may be the common

God commands us to both appreciate our blessings while also sharing among the less fortunate. Today, the ‘less fortunate’ represent over three billion individuals living in poverty, with 50 million being American. Yet, “the top 10 richest Americans hold half of all the income in [America]” Simply for personal interest, multiple elites hoard their money rather than adhere to their moral obligations of being “generous and ready to share”.

We all heard countless solutions on how to solve world poverty. In Peter Singer’s article “Rich and Poor”, he discusses how he thinks this problem can be fixed. Singer claims that we all have a responsibility to support people who are in extreme need and are suffering from absolute poverty. Singer believes that poverty could be fixed if people give up their luxuries and give the money that they spent on unnecessary things to those who are destitute. In Singer 's mind, we all have a duty to give until we are no longer able to, or until the problem with the world poverty will be solved. Singer feels that it is necessary for people who are more wealthy to help those who are less fortunate by donating money right away to organizations that help fight poverty. In his opinion, by not helping those in need we are negatively responsible for their suffering and thus failing to live a moral life.

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.

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 this paper I will defend John Arthur’s argument of entitlement and desert against Peter Singer’s theory of our duty to the global poor. We as privileged citizens, living in a prosperous country, do have some responsibility to help the tens of thousands of children under the age of 5 who die everyday from starvation and treatable disease. It seems natural that we as citizens of a first world country have a duty to help the global poor through charity. However that “duty” is vague and is under heavy moral debate. We as privileged citizens, living in a prosperous country, do have some responsibility to help the global poor. However, this rightful duty should not necessarily live up to the extreme and overwhelming expectations of Peter Singer. John Arthur’s argument of entitlement and desert is more realistic, logical, and more applicable to the world we live in today.

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.

In the article Rich and Poor, Peter Singer sees extreme poverty as “not having enough income to meet the most basic human needs for adequate food, water, shelter, clothing, sanitation, health care or education” (pg. 234). Singer does not fail to compare those in extreme poverty to people who are living in absolute affluence. He suggests that it is the responsibility of those living in affluence to help those who are in need of obtaining even the basic human needs. He also argues that the affluent not helping is the moral equivalency of murder. Singer realizes that even though the rich can give to the poor these resources that they need, the rich do not feel enough of a moral mandate to do so. I disagree a bit with Singer because he seems to suggest that everyone who has the basic necessities is morally obligated to give but, I believe that this idea of a moral mandate to give should only apply to the extremely wealthy. Like Singer’s first premises says “If we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable significance, we ought to do it.” (243) If the absolute affluent have large amounts of money, they can help to at least make people live comfortably without losing anything of great significance. The increasing poverty rates, not just in America but, globally cannot be solved if the extremely wealthy continue to do wasteful spending and choose to not put their money more towards programs and charities that better the lives of the people in their

     Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. This is the first Beatitude. It tells us that we should accept people for who they are and not the material things they have. You should not treat a person who lives in a nice house and drives a nice car any different then someone who lives in a less desirable house and drives an old car. You should treat everyone how you would like to be treated. Just because someone can not afford some of the things as you might be able to does not mean that they are a bad person. We should accept everyone into our community.

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.