Philosophy - Starving Individuals

1044 Words5 Pages
Topic: What are our obligations to starving individuals around the world? Are we obligated to help them or is such aid supererogatory (“above the call of duty”). “Presentation of the Argument” My argument follows a structure similar to Peter Singer’s it is as follows: Choosing to donate food and help others is morally good. If we can do good without causing a significant negative change in our lifestyle then we should do so. It is in our power to donate food and help others, so we should do so. My view in premise one that choosing to donate food and help others is morally good is generally accepted because it doesn’t say that a person is morally bad because they don’t donate food or help others. It only acknowledges that a good deed has been done. For example, if someone decides to teach because they want to help develop and inspire others, then they are doing something morally good, but if they choose a career path other than teaching this doesn’t imply that they’ve done something morally wrong, only that a good deed has been done. Premise two says if we can do good without causing a significant negative change in our lifestyle then we should do so, this premise suggest that good should be done if your life isn’t negatively impacted or there is no change at all. I believe this because people will be more willing to help others and do something good so as long as it doesn’t hinder them in any way. An application of my argument would be as follows: I was at McDonalds ordering food and after I paid for my meal I saw a donation box in front of the cash register that read; in support of famine relief or children with cancer, something along those lines so I decided to donate the money I received from the cashier after I paid for my meal. No one made me give away my money to support this particular cause, yet I decided to do so because it wouldn’t negatively
Open Document