Is There a Moral Obligation to Help?

Philosophy 1100 Ethics

100106040: Naoya Makino

Instructor: Alex Boston

 October 26, 2006

In highly developed countries, a majority of people are able to be educated,

housed, and well fed. However, this condition is still not true for the majority of human

beings. For this reason, it has been argued whether there is an obligation to help

strangers. Peter Singer, an Australian philosopher, proposes that it is our duty to give aid

as much as possible. On the other hand, John Arthur disagrees with Singer’s philosophy

which Arthur describes as “greater moral evil rule” (375) since it is unpractical and

ignores basic human rights. James Shikwati, a Kenyan libertarian economist, also

disagrees with Singer’s theory as development aid annihilates developing nations.

Finally, I believe that it is your choice not a duty whether you want to help sufferers or

not. If you are willing to help, educational assistance is the most reasonable support.

Singer states that it is unacceptable to allow people to suffer from starvation,

lack of necessities, or insufficient housing; thus, Singer believes it is our duty to help

suffering people if we can. His most important promise is that “...suffering and death

2
from a lack of food, clothing, adequate shelter, and medical care are bad” (368). This is

a fundamental moral and Singer believes everyone agrees with this. Based on this

guarantee, he further, and equally importantly, explains that “if it is in our power to

prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of

comparable moral importance, we ought to, morally, to do it.” (369). In other words, if

people do not do anything to help strangers even though they have a capacity to do so,

Singer considers this as a wrong. For example, if a man sees a child drowning, he has to

help the child even though he becomes dirty because the child’s life is much more

important (369). As a consequence, like this child case, people have an obligation to

rescue strangers when they are in the capacity to do so. Another reason to people’s

obligation to help is in which Singer does not see any difference between “duty and

charity” (371). In a common sense, “charity” (371) such as donating money is treated as

“generosity” (371). By comparison, no one is treated as “wrong” (371) even if he is not

charitable. For instance, nobody who is having a gorgeous dinner is seen immoral.

However, Singer claims that even if people do not have a luxurious meal, they would

not starve since they can buy a reasonable meal instead. As a result of this, they can give

meals to other hungry strangers. As long as people are able to help, they ought to do it

because this action is not “charity” but “duty” (371). To conclude, people should be

3
obligated to rescue strangers unless it invades their moralities.

According to Singer, besides our obligations, people should decide how much

to support strangers suffering based on their demands for aid. Primarily, distance should

not be a significant factor to decide whether to help. This is because in this highly

developed civilization, people are able to travel all over the world, and they can watch

world wide news easily. Hence, distance should not be a big difference between saving

a drowning neighbor child and saving an African child. “The level of marginal utility”

(373) is another important aspect to judge how much aid we should give. That is, people

have to be helpful until they harm themselves as long as they keep donating. For

instance, Canadians are able to give aid until they become a same level with “a Bengal

refugee” (373). Therefore, according to his philosophy, people ought to donate as much

as possible until suffer themselves.

In comparison, Arthur explains a Singer’s idea as “the greater moral evil rule”

or GME (375) and claims that it takes no notice of the “rights and desert” (377). Desert

in this meaning is just reward or punishment. The most important aspect in which GME

should not ignore is “rights” (378). From Arthur’s point of view, there are two

significant human rights which are “negative rights” (378) and “positive rights” (378).

“Negative rights” (378), “rights of noninterference” (378) in another word, are rights

4
not to be interfered by anyone such as a right not to be killed. The other rights which are

also ignored by GME are “positive rights” (378) same as called “rights of percipience”

(378). These rights are based on agreements. As long as people have an agreement

something, they have a right to receive it. For instance, Langara College students have

rights to attend class since they paid tuitions. In these two rights, we are not required to

help in need. In addition to rights, GME should care about “desert” (378). As an

example, a hard working farmer is able to harvest a lot of wheat as a result of his great

effort. On the other hand, a lazy farmer is starving because of his idleness (378). In this

case, the hard working farmer should not have any obligation to give wheat to the lazy

farmer. Thus, GME should consider “fairness, justice, and respect” (379). Ultimately,

Arthur argues that Singer does not explain why GME ignores “rights and desert” (377).

Like Arthur, Shikwati also strongly disagrees with GME because Shikwati

asserts in which developed countries should not give any aid to developing countries in

Africa because it destroys their countries. The most dangerous effect on developing

countries is “huge bureaucracies” (382). Because of complicated systems between

developed countries and developing countries, no one understands where millions of

dollars actually go. It often goes to their governments who store money instead of

buying food for street children. Also, many people are more likely to look for aid

5
instead of making their own efforts to solve their problems. Therefore, people tend to

become susceptible to “corruption and complacency” (382). Another equally important

risk is in which food aid destroys their economy. To illustrate, when a country receives

food from United Nations World Food Program, it high likely goes into a black market,

and these foods are sold in extreme cheap prices. As a consequence, local farmers can

not compete with these foods, so local farmers are more likely to lose their jobs. For

that reason, they have to depend on UN food again (382). Shikwati explains “it is a

simple but fatal cycle” (382). Gradually, donation has a similar bad influence. Namely, a

developing country is donated mountains of clothes, so these clothes are sold in

unreasonable cheap prices. Have a same effect as food aid; no one buys from local

factories, being out of a business. Indeed, a Nigeria’s fabric industry had employed

137,000 workers in 1997. In 2003, the number of employees in this industry was just

57,000 (384). Accordingly, these development aids contaminate received countries.

It may be contend that Africans would starve or lose their jobs if development

aid was stopped. Admittedly, some people belonging to governments or organizations

would lose jobs. However, most people are not affiliated. People must change the

situations themselves. Necessarily, they have to make their own businesses. For

example, Kenyans have to trade with Uganda or Tanzania in order to succeed their

6
businesses. These movements encourage them to make the most important

infrastructures and it leads to make laws (383). Furthermore, Africa’s countries have a

lot of natural recourses such as oil, gold, and diamonds indeed (383). This is a great

opportunity to make a successful business. It is clear that throughout these steps,

Africa’s countries would make the foundation of an independent country if development

aid were stopped.

Based on these three philosophers, it has been argued that “duty” (371) by

Singer is “we ought to [help], wrong not to do so” (372). Granted, help is a primarily

important morality in human beings. Nevertheless, I think that “help” be your “choice”,

but not your “duty” (Singer, 371). What I mean by “help” is taking care of an universal

family. Before achieving this “help”, I recommend that people should take care of a

personal family. This is an at least responsibility for everyone, so people wanting to

“help” have to take this first step. After that, people are able to care of an universal

family. Since taking care of an universal family is a huge responsibility, it highly

considers that no one would accomplish this unrealistic responsibility if that were a

“duty” (371). Hence, people would not satisfy with their lives. Inevitably, instead of

being a “duty” (371), it is more reasonable to be a “choice”. As a result, many people

would be content with them when they succeed in caring their own families. As Mother

7
Teresa said “If you can’t feed a hundred people, then feed just one” (The Quotations

Page). Ultimately, we should have a right to take care of a personal family and a

“choice” to “help” an universal family.

People, who decide to “help” in developing countries not as a “duty” (Singer,

371), can be suggested that education aid is the most recommended support. The most

significant reason why education aid is the best is this helps people to be independent.

Here is a well-known Chinese proverb that “Give a man a fish; you have fed him for

today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed for a lifetime” (The Quotations Page). That

is instead of donating products or money; people should provide means of products. For

instance, “Free Education” (Gehring, 2003, p. 8) in Kenya is a great example of

successful education aid. In Kenya, due to a shortage of teachers and expensive school

fees, a majority of children were not able to go to schools, but today, thanks to “Free

Education” (Gehring, 2003, p. 8), millions of children can attend class and study. Result

from an education; children are able to access various opportunities such as reading

books and learning the world. Meanwhile, they are more likely to be successful business

men, independent, and generous to the countries. In short, not only makes an education

aid a bright future, but also for nations.

In summary, although these three philosophers believe help is morally

8
important, I disagree with Singer’s philosophy since this is unrealistic and too strict. If I

followed his theory, I should not be here; instead I should go to Africa to help sufferers.

This is impractical. Even if I chose to help in Africa, my contributions would be limited

due to lack of my current skills. Therefore, it is more reasonable to stay here and get an

education. Gradually, I will live my own life and succeed in caring for my own family.

Finally I will take care of an “universal family” with my accomplished skills. I believe

this is more an effective and realistic idea than Singer’s theory. Therefore, even though

people do not follow his philosophy, they can still be able to help many sufferers like

Bill Gates. He has succeeded in his own life and now he is contributing his wealth all

over the world. I hope I can step the same direction.

9
 References

Arthur, John. “World Hunger and Moral Obligation: The Case against Singer”
Vice and Virtue in Everyday Life Introductory Readings in Ethics edited by Christina
Sommers and Fred.7th ed. Belmont:CA, 2007. 375-380.

“Chinese Proverb” The Quotations Page. (n,d,) Retrieved October 21, 2006,
from http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/2279.html

Gehring, John (April 16, 2003). Children Flood Kenyan Schools to get a Free
Education. Educational Week. (22)31, 8-10. Retrieved October 22, 2006, from
EBSCOhost database.

“Mother Teresa” The Quotations Page. (n,d,) Retrieved October 21, 2006, from
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/4628.html

Shikwati, James. “For Heaven’s Sake, Please Stop the Aid!” Vice and Virtue in
Everyday Life Introductory Readings in Ethics edited by Christina Sommers and
Fred.7th ed. Belmont:CA, 2007. 381-385.

Singer, Peter. “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” Vice and Virtue in Everyday
Life Introductory Readings in Ethics edited by Christina Sommers and Fred.7th ed.
Belmont:CA, 2007. 367-374.

10
11