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):||27 October 2005|
|PDF File Size:||18.56 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||10.53 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
I do not agree with his claim because I believe that we should feed the hungry. There are three reasons. Secondly, even if some of us a. How to feed a hungry w OK, here we go, the ca That’s what we need in In the essay you shoul Can We Feed the World What should we do in o Don’t feed the ducks.
Stay hungry Stay fooli Stay Hungry Stay Fooli Lastly, we actually fedding benefits by feeding the starving. Narveson believes that starvation come from politics and natural disasters, for example, bad government and floods Thus, he concludes that we did not cause man starvation. However, if we look at the history, we can find that most developing nations were colonies of us, developed countries.
In other words, we maybe somehow lead them to establish bad governments. Other than colonial heritage, we have created socialism and communism. The Soviet Union and China learned these ideas from us and they ever had serious starvation due to this ideology Narveson Suppose you taught a man to cook a kind of food which actually is toxic. This man made the food. Then he ate it and died. Should not you be somewhat responsible for his death?
You made a mistake and your mistake caused his death. Although you did it intentionally, you did cause the death indirectly. For natural disasters, we still cannot completely be exempted from it. We emit much more jaan gases per capita than developing countries Singer And human activities attribute most of the global warming.
So the disasters may not be totally natural. We may help create the disasters. Secondly, if some people of us insist that the others are starving is not their fault at all, they still have the duty of justice to provide food to the hungry. Therefore, since we are free, we cannot be forced to help the others whose starvation was not the result of our previous activities I believe that when people are starving, we, over fed people, are at the right time to feed them. It is the right time because first of all they need food to survive, and we actually are able to supply.
So we definitely have the capability. In our culture, we believe in egalitarianism. If everybody is born with equal right to live, the hungry should be fed. Feeding the starving is morally right. Therefore, we are in fact forced to feed them by moral power.
Jan Narveson: Feeding the Hungry
Hngry, although we are free, we are not free to do anything. We must obey the law and we should follow the moral rule. So, feeding the hungry is a duty of justice. Lastly, we should feed the hungry due to utilitarianism theory. Utilitarianism states that people are morally right to promote happiness or maximize utilities Soifer XIII. When we feed the starving, the starving gets benefits. Meanwhile, our utility also increases because our benefit is greater than the cost of giving.
Chen 3 If people are starving to death, narvesom happiness becomes zero.
If they are fed, they receive utility instantly. Hardin argues that feeding the hungry today would create more starving people tomorrow which we are not capable to feed. Narveson partly agree with him His argument is arbitrary. Evidence shows that population can be controlled by government policy. For example, China has been using one-child policy successfully to manage overall population, which partly attributes to decrease absolute poverty dramatically.
Jan Narveson: Feeding the Hungry
So we cannot conclude that we are not able to feed the hungry in nagveson future. At the same time, we are benefited by giving, both in the short run and long run.
While giving food to the hungry, we are feeling happy due to our human nature.
Rousseau believes that human beings are naturally capable of mutual love and cooperation Sigurdson So giving actually fulfills our natural desires and creates utility. Also, giving makes life more meaningful. Feeding the hungry is saving lives, so it makes us like heroes. How many times during your life you have the chance to save a life of human beings? In the long run, we will have very good reputation by giving. It will improve rhe relationship between the others and us.
Trade will be promoted, and we will gain from trade. Moreover, since Canada always need immigrants to fill up shrinking population, the others may provide human resource in the future.
The cost of giving is far below the benefits. Inthe UN recommended that tye countries devote at least 0. Chen 5 Works Cited Myrden, Judy. Edited by Rand Dyck. In Moral Matters, 2nd ed. Broadview Press, LTD, In Plato Complete Works. Edited by John M. narceson
Jan Narveson Feeding the Hungry
Hackett Publishing Company, Inc, In One World-the Ethics of Globalization, 2nd ed. Yale University Press, Singer, Peter.
Edited by Eldon Soifer. In Ethical Issues-Perspectives for Canadians, 2nd ed. In Economic Development, jna ed.