Is an obligation to provide financial assistance to those who in need? Essay
Is an obligation to provide financial assistance to those who in need?, 498 words essay example
Essay Topic: need
reason, it has been argued whether there is an obligation to provide financial assistance to those who in need? Peter Singer, in his article, "Famine, Affluence, and Morality", argues that it is our duty to sacrifice our luxuries in life for those in less fortunate situation. In contrast, John Arthur disagrees with Singer's belief which he defines as "greater moral evil rule" (Vice and Virtue, 381) since it is unrealistic and ignores basic human rights. One of the reoccurring theme stated by Arthur in the passage, "World Hunger and Moral Obligation The Case against Singer" is that that even though we should help those in need, it is not a moral obligation to do so. Arthur claims that when working to achieve our own riches a person has a right to do with their money as they please. There are two forms of moral right according to Arthur. He supports his belief by testifying the difference between positive and negative rights "positive rights are rights of recipience", and "negative rights are rights of noninterference." Singer would evaluate the act of not helping those in need as morally wrong, Arthur would argue that this is a positive rights since there is no contract or promise made, therefore no such right exists.
The new idea from Arthur's passage that his code "does not require such heroism" is very interesting to me. He does not suggest that we should not help others, but instead saying that we have to right to not give. Most of us would consider the act of giving money as charity but not as our duty like Singer describes in his article. Thus, this allows us to make a free decision and not feel obligated to help some strangers. Given an example of a good farmer who puts in his effort to make a living versus a lazy one, when the lazy one asks the hard working farmer for some help, Singer would say that it is our duty to give some of our goods to the lazy farmer. Arthur would disagree with Singer's philosophy since this is unrealistic and too strict.
I believe that a hard working farmer earns what he deserves and no one else should take that from him. The amount of work that you put in should allow you to make the choice for what impact they will have on others. Having a moral choice to help ease the pain of someone else rather than a moral obligation to this duty is better in my opinion. If I followed Singer 'philosophy, I would not be here rather I would go back to my home country to help the poor. This is certainly impractical and not effective way at all since lazy people could take advantage of this situation and depends on other people to support them rather than working for their own good. Everyone controls their own destiny in life, so one should be given the choice to make with their life and others.