Why Do We Have A Moral Obligation

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.

As the population continues to grow the challenge of sustainably feeding the population increases. Countries like India, china, and Africa are some of the most agriculture abundant locations in the world yet they are the ones suffering the most from hunger. Currently 1 in 7 Americans struggle to eat enough food everyday. Poverty in Africa however is very different from America in regard to hunger. In America 40 percent of Americans from age 25-60 will experience at least a year below the poverty line. This quite the contrary to Africa where most people spend their whole life under the poverty line. The major difference is resources, many Americans can overcome poverty and find a steady job to support themselves. In Africa there are limited jobs, most people have to cultivate their own food and supply their own drinking water. It is an endless cycle of hunger with no real way out unless outside help is given.

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.

Richard Robbins explores and analyzes the creation and the upkeep of hunger in his book “Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism. Each day, over a billion people in the world lack basic food needs. Common misunderstandings about world hunger are that it is the result of insufficient food production, famine is the common reason for hunger and that hunger is caused by overpopulation. Robbins argues against that theory and says that famines is not the leading cause of hunger and hunger is not due to overpopulation or insufficient food production. “Food production is not determined by the global need for food; it is determined on how many people have the means for it” (page 176). The documentary “The End of Poverty” reinforces Robbins belief that food is a commodity.

As long as the human race has been on this Earth there have always been those who are above the rest with their wealth and prosperity and those who are poor and could use a hand. With this rises the dilemma of whether it is a moral obligation for those who are wealthy to lend a helping hand to the hungry people that are less fortunate than them. That brings the question of what would this moral obligation be; would it be something that we perceive as being the correct thing to do or an actual obligation that is required of us. The two men whose articles I will be discussing today have differing views when it comes to this subject. On one hand we have Garrett Hardin who believes that aiding the poor is the wrong course of action. We then have Peter Singer who believes that is should be an obligation for all of us to help those in need. While Garrett Hardin makes a strong argument as to why we should not provide aid to the poor it is Peter Singer’s argument that gives a more compelling reason as to why it is right for us to aid those in need.

World hunger is one of the many dire problems facing the human race. Although the common person probably won't have a big impact on ending world hunger, but by being aware of the issues you become empowered. It is first necessary discuss some other the myths about the reasons for world hunger. World hunger is not caused by population increase, but it is one of the factors. The global grain production is high enough to

We feel a moral obligation to our fellow humans to help them when they are need and not see them suffer. What isn’t clear is how far that moral obligation extends. Peter Singer argues we should help our fellow man as much as we can up to giving up something nearly as important for us. This would entail donating most of one’s money to charity leaving just enough for the necessities of one life. In this paper I will push back against Singer’s view and try to argue that we don’t always have a moral obligation to help everyone we can.

While it would be generous and kind, and compassionate of us to feed the hungry, doing so is morally optional rather than required” (232). Narverson’s claim is different from Singer’s claims. Their claims are against each other, from Narvenson’s view that people have more freedom to do what they would like to do, so if they choose not to save a hunger lives then it also morally permitted. People have a right to use their own money; they make their own money so they can spend it on whatever they want. However, Singer against that claim by saying that if people choose not to save other people lives than it is morally inexcusable. Most people agree that Singer claims will have more meaningful because people do not want to see an innocent person to die just because they do not have enough money. No one would like to have a terrible live like missing foods, water or clothes. The reasons that people are becoming hunger, homeless are because they must have made some wrong decision in their life. However, no one is perfect; anyone in this world can make mistakes. Even hungers were probably making mistake but they should have a chance to start their new journal again. Adult might make a wrong decision and it leads to poverty, but their children are innocent. Children on the world should have all equal opportunity to achieve their future success. Besides that, poverty is not all about people who made mistake in their life. People should also consider about some other problems like disabilities, living in the underdeveloped country. Those people really need our help from the bottom of the heart, so they can become stronger to move on. Sometimes, it is not their fault; it is just because they were born into a poor family, unlucky, or a poor country like Africa. Each individual should help

For the sake of clarification in this debate, I would like to define the following terms from the Merriam Webster Dictionary:

In the article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer argues that our conceptions on moral belief need to change. Specifically, he argues that giving to famine relief is not optional but a moral duty and failing to contribute money is immoral. As Singer puts it, “The way people in affluent countries react ... cannot be justified; indeed the whole way we look at moral issues-our moral conceptual scheme-needs to be altered and with it, the way of life that has come to be taken for granted in our society”(135). In other words, Singer believes that unless you can find something wrong with the following argument you will have to drastically change your lifestyle and how you spend your money. Although some people might believe that his conclusion is too radical, Singer insists that it is the logical result of his argument. In sum, his view is that all affluent people should give much more to famine relief.

Should the United States dedicate 1 percent of its gross national product annually toward the alleviation of world hunger? This is a very good question and is one that I feel uncertain about. This topic really drew my attention, as it approaches many great arguments that support either side. Each side gives great reasons why the U.S. should or should not support this topic of interest. In this essay, I want to directly talk about three different Ethical Theories that we have learned about throughout class. I’ll explain their particular values and how they would see this issue. Is it right or is it wrong? Do we have an obligation to send support for the less fortunate to alleviate hunger? Each theory has its own position on this matter

Many people might believe that global famine exists nowadays just in extremely poor places of the world and in not so high levels when indeed local level famines have erupted in Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and parts of Latin America. Some 795 million people in the world do not have enough food to lead a healthy active life. That is about one in nine people on earth and the vast majority of the world's hungry people live in developing countries, where 12.9 percent of the population is undernourished. Which is even sadder is to think that actually the amounts of food to help solve this situation exists around the world and instead of been designated to contribute with the cause it is thrown to garbage. “40% percent of the food that is produced

The story of “The solution to World Hunger,” by philosopher Peter Singer, he illustrate about this world that some peoples did not want to donate money to poor peoples. There is some people are failure to donate money to poor peoples by spending money on their unnecessary matter. The unnecessary spending is when people spend their money that which is not to live for support life, just have fun such as going to a nice restaurant, buying new clothes by forgetting the old clothes, and go to vacation for fun. If people donate money that is very charitable for their honor life, and it is helpful to peoples when charitable person have difficult. Peter Singer explain us that people waste their money, instead of helping peoples when they are difficult problem.

It is a common and universal fact that different persons and different societies are better off than others. It would be rare, if not impossible, to find one opposed to this statement. However, despite mankind acknowledging this terrible truth, there is widespread debate as to what each individual’s moral obligations are on this matter. Should everyone impart of their wealth to those they do not know, yet who may be in need? Are we letting people die by not giving of our surplus? Two authors, Jan Narveson and Peter Singer, have both addressed this issue. Based on a religious background, I believe we are obligated to give to the poor and hungry, though not to the full extent of Singer’s view.

Americans donate twice as much as individuals in other rich nations, but only a fraction goes to help people where there is the greatest need. The majority of donations and consideration tend to go toward the donors community’s and churches, and disregard those that aren’t able to be seen, as if they don’t exist. Fortunately, there are some philosophers that wish to extend one’s consideration farther than the eye can see and extend ethics globally, such as Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics at Princeton and a renown moral philosopher. The aforementioned Peter Singer argues that, “ethics should be globalized, and that we owe an ethical duty not only toward people who are near to us, but to all people around the globe”. He believes everyone should have equal ethical consideration regardless of their location. Therefore, it is my job to discuss my take on Peter Singer’s philosophy and debate the extent of which our ethical duties should extend for the foreign beings around the world, under the categories of hunger and refugees.