|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
Famine Relief
Famine relief is a very relevant and pressing issue in today’s world. Many feel that it is their obligation to contribute to famine relief either through charities, or government run programs. ... I believe that famine relief, whether individually or government run, is not an essential moral obligation of the United States or any one person. ... I am in no way saying that famine relief is a negative thing that people shouldn’t do; if people believe they are helping relieve famine by contributing, that’s great, it is just something that is not required of them morally. Many people have argued that famine relief is not required or necessary from an empirical point of view, such as Patrick Gray, who argues on the basis of famine relief providing population control and natural selection. While the conclusion of famine relief being unnecessary and not the responsibility of potential contributors can be proven empirically, this paper is going to focus on proving that it is not morally required, mostly on the basis of John Stuart Mill’s sanction theory.
Perhaps the most major advocate of the idea that it is an individual’s duty to contribute to famine relief is Peter Singer. In his work Famine, Affluence, and Morality, he outlines many ideas and makes many claims to support the idea of moral obligation to famine relief. ... But to what extent does our moral obligation reach in the area of fund giving? ... Singer says rather that, “we ought to give the money away, and it is wrong not to do so” (Singer). ...
The idea of moral obligation to relieve famine brings forward the idea of helping those who are in need, which is a good general rule to live by. ... This brings forward inherent problems in Singer’s, and that advocates of moral obligation, argument. ... This was, most likely, not the original idea that Singer meant to put across; he probably just meant it to apply to famine relief. ...
In his work Famine Relief and the Ideal Moral Code, John Arthur brings forward the issue of entitlements, or rights. ... He says that while a person may have a shorter life if they lost a kidney, or if they may have a less enjoyable life with one eye, their personal concern is negligible when compared to the potential loss of the person who, if not helped, would die from kidney disease, or be completely blind. People obviously have rights to their own body parts, and are not obligated, in any way, to give them up against their will. ... This perfectly illustrates the issue of moral obligation. If entitlement to the rights of a person, as set up by Arthur, the people that would be called morally obligated to help the famine problem could back up his or her action by appealing to rights as justification for their action. ... The people starving do not have the positive right to receive benefit, in this case charity, from others. They do not, as Mill would say, have a claim, or promise entitling them to the benefit of receiving aid.
Approximate Word count = 2533
Approximate Pages = 10.1
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|