Peter Singer and John Arthur: Analysis of Their Works - Essay Example

PETER SINGER AND JOHN ARTHUR Peter Singer and John Arthur: Discussion of their Works October 13, 2009 I. What is Singer’s thesis with regard to family relief? Briefly explain what this means. Regarding Family Relief, Singer (1972) uses that one should try to use all their resources to the best to prevent something bad from happening. This could be done if one did not have to give up a thing that is of comparable value to prevent the event from happening. Drawing the line, Singer argues that if ones family were starving, then we would try to everything in our power to prevent such a thing from happening. Extending the argument further Singer says that if a child were drowning and there were many people around standing and watching, it would be the right thing is one were to jump into the water and save the child. This may result in getting muddy and the clothes wet, but the fact that it has saved a life is justification enough.. Singer uses the argument that mass starvation and deaths due to hunger and suffering is preventable only if the affluent governments and the well off citizens donated more. Currently, rich governments and rich citizens are not under any moral obligation to help starving people and this is not ethically justified. Singer says that our morality needs to change along with our lifestyle and only then can we become more ethical people. People tend to look after their family and dear ones since they are bound by blood ties an they help someone nearby since the victims are within reach. According to Singer, one must be rid of this fallacy and be ready to help other, irrespective of the distances. II. What is the principle by which Singer justifies his position? Briefly explain what this means. Singer (1972) believes that the affluent and people should contribute to help the poor and the starving. According to Singer, the rich and affluent do not respond to famine situations in countries such as Bangladesh where over nine million people were starving because of a failing government, cyclone and failing harvests. According to the author, people do not donate liberally to such causes nor do they take any extra efforts to increase the awareness in their government to take any action. As per the argument that Singer uses, countries continue to fritter away their money on useless expenses such as the Concorde project that would cost 440 million GBP. Even individuals do not care to donate any sizeable amount to help the starving for whom the donation is a difference between life and death. Singer points out that every day, hundreds of people die of starvation in the world and people and governments of affluent nations do not care to help the people and stop people from being killed. He relates this apathy to a type of murder and that people have come to take human life for granted. Singer notes that some people and governments are gifted with more wealth than they needs, more clothes than they can wear and more food than they can eat. Such entities should donate more and more to save life and prevent starvation deaths. Distance, help and starvation do not make any difference since the delivery and reach by organisations that help people can help aid to reach quickly to far off places. III. What is the Utilitarian position with regard to what actions it is moral for us to do? Briefly explain what this means. According to Singer’s classical Utilitarian position (1972), one should contribute and donate until the person reaches the point of marginal utility. At this point, if one were to give away more money, then it would produce the same type of suffering for the family that the charity is designed to prevent in others. In other words, Singer is saying that one should give to the poor until all the resources are exhausted and one becomes as poor as the person for whom the donation is given and this is the level of marginal utility. The author suggests certain actions to prevent hunger and famine from killing the poor. He argues that one should work full time to relieve the intense suffering that strikes people during famine. There is the danger of overwork during such exertions so that one would become weak and sick, just like the famine victims who are suffering. The level of marginal utility therefore lets us decide how much aid and contribution one should give to others. The fact that such nations are always in the cycle of flood, drought, famine, surplus and so on matters little. One should not consider stopping aid for the present, just because the same situation may occur sometime later in the future. Various Utilitarian philosophies have suggested austerity in life is important. Singer comments that a person may have a huge dinner, yet he may not be obliged to contribute anything to famine victims and yet our society does not regard the person as being immoral. IV. In what way are the principles by which Singer justifies his position Utilitarian – and how does Singer deviate from or transform the more classical Utilitarian position? Singer (1972) realizing that the classical Utilitarian position was too radical has proposed a modified and moderate version of the model. According to this model, one needs to contribute and give away money but only if nothing of moral significance was lost. So there was not need for a person to contribute until he reached the marginal utility level. This would seem a better solution than the stronger version since there is no need for a person and his family to be reduced to the position of the victims, by excessive contribution. However, Singer prefers to follow the stronger Utilitarian position and believes that such a pursuit would remove the ills of a consumer society where consumerism is the key to living. However, as a middle path, it would be acceptable if all people in a society would contribute to prevent starvation deaths from occurring in countries such as Bangladesh. The author points out that if all people were to contribute 15 GBP for the welfare of the famine victims, then there would be much better hope for survival. However, such an event does not happen at all and in fact other than oneself and a few other people, the rest of the people would not contribute at all. What is perhaps worst is that in such a case, there is no pressure on the non-contributors and they do not feel any guilt for not contributing at all. In such a case, the strict Utilitarian position thus becomes obligatory for all. V. What is Arthur’s thesis with regard to Singer’s thesis? Briefly explain what this means. Arthur (2008) has rebutted the philosophy and logic of Singer and argues that a person should have the right of natural entitlement. Arthur was living in a developed country and consequently his way of thinking was that of the majority of well to do people. Such people tend to say that the money they have earned is theirs and so they should be free to decide what to do with it. Consequently, there is no obligation to contribute to a cause or to give it to others. This is more so when the contribution is meant for a person who may be living in a foreign country and may be someone they would never meet. Arthur has critiqued Singers theory by saying that according to Singer, if someone was suffering from a kidney failure, then we would be obliged to give up one of our kidney, so that there is equality in suffering between the two people. Arthur points that the duty to help unknown people cannot be a negative right that is based in nature. It is a positive right that has to be earned through promise or a contract. Therefore, when Singer speaks of ethics and morals of poor starving people, these people have not entered into any contract with the rich from the well to do nations. The moral code should also consider that a rich person has the right to his wealth while the poor and starving does not have such rights over others wealth. VI. What is the principle by which Arthur justifies his position? Briefly explain what this means. Arthur (2008) uses the concept of the greater moral evil rule - GME and this has no notice of the rights and desert. Desert is just reward or punishment and GME believes that rights should not be ignored. According to Arthur, there are two important human rights and these are the positive and negative rights. Negative rights are also called as non-interference rights and these are rights with which no one can interfere and a good example is the right to live and the right not to be killed. Every law-abiding citizen has this right while a condemned criminal may have been forced to give up claims to this right. Arthur also speaks of desert and an example is the difference between a hardworking farmer and a lazy farmer. A hard working obtains a good harvest and would face prosperous times while a lazy farmer would be starving because of his laziness. In such a case, the hardworking farmer cannot be expected to have any obligation to help the lazy farmer. Therefore, the GME should give consideration and respect for what is just and fair. The main argument that Arthur uses is that one need to be worried and concerned only about our own well being and happiness. If a person as two eyes and two kidneys, this does not mean that the person should give up one of both of the items to a stranger who does not have them. The question of giving should be based on self evident principles and fundamental laws of reason. VII. What is the Kantian position with regard to what actions it is moral for us to do? Briefly explain what this means. According to Kant, the moral requirements that a person observes depend on rationality standard and he called this as the CI - categorical imperative. If some one was considered immoral, then there was a violation of CI. Kantian philosophy assumed that rational agents have a requirement that must follow certain instrumental principles. Therefore, the Kantian philosophy is based on a conception of feelings and mainly reason that would be expected to extend beyond the realms of passion. Moral philosophy must be able to the cover the needs that morality exerts in the human social intervention and it must also consider the highest good and how it would have an impact on the moral life. He further argues that moral perfection is not possible to achieve in life and that few people deserve the type of happiness that they get. Kant argues that a virtuous person does not necessarily mean a well being person and an excess could be in conflict. According to Kant, some natural rights were treated as an end to oneself. Therefore, there would be a natural right since it is not clear if it is fundamental law of reason and it cannot be decided by convention. Kant is of the opinion that the concept of good will would be an idea of a person making decisions that are morally worth and thus moral factors are good reasons to guide the behaviour of people. Kant also speaks of morality as the behaviour that emerges out of a person’s sense of duty and the need to obey rules and laws (Arthur, 2008). VIII. In what way are principles by which Arthur justifies his position Kantian – and how does Arthur deviate from or transform the more classical Kantian position? Briefly explain what this means. Arthur (2008) argues that moral rights are factors that have to be considered in what is to be considered as owed and what is not. Arthur says that we are entitled to invoke our own rights as justification so as not to donate and give to strangers who live in foreign lands. He also feels that there would be some resistance if the cost were substantial. According to Arthur, the moral code would be considering all these aspects along with entitlements. Then a larger moral evil factor speaks of human equality so that everyone who suffers equally bad and each person’s happiness are equally good. The larger moral evil rule also gives importance to impartiality and to gaze with objectivity at the intended results of the action. In looking at the results of the actions, it looks at the future and the past. Arthur accepts that moral rules changes and that allowances have to be made to accept moral changes. In some cases, if some moral rules are found to be inferior, then they have to be changed with better ones. Then the idea of entitlements would become an inferior part of the current moral code. However, the concept of entitlements is the key component of the moral code and so entitlements must conform to respect, justice and fairness, therefore if one has earned trade, then wee are entitled to it. On the other hand, we are not given money if we have not earned it and this is regarded as unfair. IX. Affirm both Singer and Arthur? . An affirmation of both Singer and Arthur would mean that certain ideas are to be taken from each to come up with a new set of principles. The stand taken by Singer is too extreme as it would mean that to help the starving and the unfortunate, one has to give up his own hard earned wealth till he comes to the level of the sufferer. On the other hand, Arthurs stand that a person need not be morally obliged to give money to those who are unfortunate because such a moral rule impinges on the right to entitlement is also too extreme. Arthur is of the opinion that we have earned our money so there is no need to share it with others or to become bankrupt just because someone else was not lucky or worked hard enough to earn it. Taking the ideas of Singer, it would be wise to subtract the notion of Utilitarian position and marginal utility that expects a person to contribute till he comes to the level of the victim. Taking the ideas of Arthur, we need to subtract the concept of greater moral evil rule – GME. It is ethically and morally wrong to argue that a starving person in far off Bangladesh is of no concern to us. What can be taken from Singer and Arthur is that a person should be moved by the suffering of others and agree to contribute to what best he can. There can be no concept of coercion and obligation but only of voluntary behaviour. If the synthesis of Arthur and Singer is not done, then we would have tow works that are radically opposed and that do not have any practical value. References Arthur. John,. 29 February 2008. Chapter 27: World Hunger and Moral Obligation: The Case against Singer, (Eds) Cahn. M. Steven, in Exploring Ethics: An Introductory Anthology. Oxford University Press, US. Singer. Peter., 1972. Famine, Affluence, and Morality. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1(1), pp. 229-243, [Online] http://www.utilitarian.net/ Available at http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1972----.htm Retrieved 13 October 2009. Read More