Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

DanielGiannuzzi

PHI2604
February8th,2015
TermPaper#1

Topic1:GlobalPoverty&Hunger

Worldhungerisanissuethataffectsmanyinthisworldtoday.TheUnitedNationsFoodand

AgricultureOrganizationestimatesthatnearly870millionpeopleofthe7.1billionpeopleintheworld,

oroneineight,weresufferingfromchronicundernourishmentin20102012.[3]Manyfactors

contributetothisproblem,however,wewillbelookingatthemoralobligation,weasasocietyhaveto

thosesufferingofpovertyandhungerratherthanthecauses.

Thetwosidesthatwillbediscussedonthistopicarefromtwoessays.OnewrittenbyPeter

Singer,anAustralianphilosopherandtheotherfromJanNarveson,aprofessorofPhilosophyatThe

UniversityofWaterlooinCanada.Whatmoralobligationdoweasasocietyhaveonhelpingoutthose

whoarelessfortunatethanus?Singerarguesthatwehaveanobligationtohelpthoseinneedandtakes

ittooneextremebyclaiminganymoneyspentonnonessentialitemsaredeprivingthoseinneed[1]

whereasNarvesontakesittotheotherendofthespectrumandsaysthatanyobligationwouldbetaking

awayonesliberty[2].Letsdivealittledeeperintotheseclaims.

Singerdiscussesacouplethoughtexperimentswhichbegthequestionareweharmingthe

worldbyspendingmoneyonunnecessaryitemsinsteadofdonatingthatmoneytocharity?The

answer,accordingtoSingerisyes,ouractionstonotspendourmoneyonotherstosavetheirlivesis

morallyinexcusable.[1]

Giannuzzi2

Hediscussesafewideaswhichanalogizecertainpeoplesactions,comparingthemessentially

tothekillingofothersOneofthemisthecaseofBob.Bobisintheunluckypositionofseeingachild

onthetracksandtheonlywaytosavethiskidistoflipaswitch,whichwouldplacehisonlyworldly

possession,aBugattiontotracks,savingthechild.Bobdecidesnottothrowtheswitchandthechild

dies.Singerstatesthatmanyofuswillthinkthatdecisioniswrong.Butcanthatbesowrongwhen

weinsocietyhavetheopportunitytosaveslivesallthetimeandrefuseto?Manyofuswillneverbein

Bobssituation,butmanyofusdohavethecapacitytopickupaphoneanddonatemoneyto

organizationslikeUNICEFandOxfamAmerica.Singersuggeststhatwearemorallyobligatedtodo

soifwecan.[1]

SingersaysthatanAmericanhouseholdwithanincomeof$50.000spendsaround$30,00

annuallyonnecessities.[1]Thatleavesuswith$20,000thatcouldbeusedtosavechildrenslives.He

comparesnotspendingourextraincometoBobnotflippingtheswitch.Singersuggeststhataperson

shoulddonate$200tosavealife.Thisnumberwascalculatedbyestimatingthecostachildneedsto

transitionfromage2toage6.[1]

TheviewsexpressedinSingersclaimsrepresentanoverallviewoftheethicsofutilitarianism,

whichemphasizesonincreasingthetotalbenefitofhumanityandthedecreasingofhumansuffering.[1]

Ultimately,themessageofthistheoryiscommunicatedthroughoutthisessaytheendgoalbeingto

helpthosearoundyouonceyourbasicnecessitiesrequiredforlivingaremet.

Ontheothersideofthespectrum,wehaveNarveson,whobeginsbyquestioningtheobligationswe

haveasasocietytohelpthosearounduswhoarestarving.Themainreasoninggivenisthatbeing

forcedtogivetakespeoplesliberty.[2]
Giannuzzi3

Narvesonmakesthedistinctionofseparatingtheideaofstarvationandmurder.Ifyouwereto

depriveonegroupofpeopleoffoodandwater,thatwouldbemurder,becauseyouarethedirectreason

whythatgroupofpeopledied.Alternatively,ifagroupofpeopleranoutoffoodontheirownand

theystarvedtodeath,thatwouldnotbemurder,althoughitwouldofcoursebeunfortunate.[2]

Narvesonisnotadvocatingallowingpeopletostarve,buthedoesbringuptherighttochoosewhether

ornotoneshouldfeedthehungry.Ifoneweretofeedthehungry,thatactwouldbeconsider

virtuous.[2]

Narvesonusesthewordsjusticeandcharitytomakethemoraldistinctionoffeedingthe

hungry.Justicebeingenforcedandcharitybeingamoralvirtue.Morespecifically,itismorally

permissibletoforcesomeonetoactjustly,butitisnotmorallypermissibletoforcesomeonetobe

charitable,asthatactwoulddiminishthevirtuousnatureofkindness.[2]

Also,Narvesonacknowledgesthathungerisntsuchaclearcutissue.Oftentimes,hungeris

causedbybadgovernmentsasopposedtonaturaldisaster.[2]Thisdistinctionisraisedtorecognize

thatweashumansarentsodirectlyconnectedtothosesufferingandalsobecauseabadgovernment

cancauseaproblemlikehungertolinger,evenaftertheinitialaidisgiven.[2]

TheviewsexpressedbyNarvesonarelibertarianincomparisontothoseofSingers.Narveson

respectstherightsthatwehaveasindividualstoacttohowweseefit,whilenotdiminishingthose

whodochoosetoactcharitable.Intheend,accordingtoSinger,apersonoughttoskipdinnerand

andgo
donateandNarvesonsays,Wecanfeedthestarving totheopera![1][2]

Giannuzzi4
NotesandWorksCited

1. TheEthicalLife.
Singer,Peter.TheSingerSolutiontoWorldPoverty. NewYork2015Print
2. Narveson,Jan.FeedingtheHungry. TheEthicalLife.
NewYork2015Print.
3. FoodandAgricultureOrganization.2012."TheStateofFoodInsecurityintheWorld
2012"http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i3027e/i3027e00.htm

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen