d. misguided to feed the hungry. According to Narveson, which will “add more to the sum of human happiness”: supporting Oxfam or going to the opera?. A positive duty is an obligation to do something. A negative duty is an obligation to refrain from doing something (link). Thus, a common. Start studying Jan Narveson Feeding The Hungry. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools.
|Published (Last):||14 September 2011|
|PDF File Size:||13.10 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||5.66 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Singer could begin replying to the above argument by observing that most people will not do as he urges them to.
Force is only justified when it is necessary to prevent or punish a use of force e. Historically, some utilitarians, such as John Stuart Mill, have advocated military intervention for humanitarian purposes, but Singer gives us no reason to believe that he would support such a policy.
Yale University Press, Singer, Peter. OK, here we go, the ca This reply is not a bad start, but it does leave something to be desired.
Stay hungry Stay fooli This man made the food. So, feeding the hungry is a duty of justice. Narveson claims that nearly all starvation is caused by politics, not by insufficient quantities of food.
And human activities attribute most of the global warming. This claim seems to be supported by two general considerations: The conclusion does not follow unless The Greatest Happiness Principle or a similar consequentialist doctrine is added as a premise; Narveson rejects consequentialism. If, as Narveson maintains, our basic moral obligation is to let others live as they see narbeson, then there is a strong moral presumption against forcibly intervening to change the government of another country, or stopping a civil war.
In the essay you shoul Stay Hungry Stay Fooli While giving food to the hungry, we are feeling happy due to our human nature. Meanwhile, our utility also increases because our benefit is greater than the cost of giving.
Trade will be promoted, and we will gain from trade. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc, Lastly, we actually reap benefits by feeding the starving. According to Narveson, we have a duty not to forcibly interfere in the lives of others.
For example, allowing people to starve to death when I have plenty of food is just as wrong as actively preventing them from getting food so that they starve to death other things being equal.
Jan Narveson: Feeding the Hungry
In One World-the Ethics of Globalization, 2nd ed. Neither refers to what we are prohibited from doing. Sign up using Email and Password. What Narveson does argue is that it would be wrong for others to force us to give, say, by taxing us and giving our money to charity.
Does this imply he does not believe we have a positive duty? For example, China has been using one-child policy successfully to manage overall population, which partly attributes to decrease absolute poverty dramatically.
We would need to know the long-term effects of feeding the hungry versus the long-term effects of continuing to buy luxuries. A positive duty is an obligation to do something. But the question is, how is this denial to be defended? Narveson, unlike Singer, thinks that our voluntary choices about giving are morally permissible, whether we choose to give or not.
When we feed the starving, the starving gets benefits.
Jan Narveson – “Feeding the Hungry”
This is because in both cases, he is saying we are not required to do something. When people deny this, they are mistaken. This means, in general, that we may not forcibly intervene in the lives of others. This second point thhe crucial. Moreover, since Canada always need immigrants to fill up shrinking population, the others may provide human resource in the future. We may help create the disasters.
But he points out that even utilitarians may have reason to adopt policies that do not require us to feed the hungry. How would Singer respond to the argument?
If it was not the result of my previous activities, then I have no obligation to him, and may help him out or not, as I choose. People are deliberately starved by corrupt governments who hhungry aid or enforce inefficient farming policies, or as a result of war civil or otherwise.
But for a utilitarian, such as Singer, there is no reason in principle why it would be wrong to force people to give. Should not you be somewhat responsible for his death? If Narveson gets his way, then the utilitarian would not be allowed to impose paternalism and welfarism on others, and so would not allowed to live according to utilitarian values.
It would be awkward for Singer to concede that if we all did our moral duty, then the world would be much worse off.
Email Required, but never shown. Narveson is not saying that there is some morally neutral standpoint from which some people matter more than others, so his view is not un-egalitarian in that sense.