A doctor does not have the right to do this because he or she is not God and should not ‘play God’. This is why euthanasia is opposed. Followers of Natural Law would argue that euthanasia, with regards to the quality of life, might end a person’s suffering which was causing them to have poor quality life, but it does not consider that a person could have gotten better if they were not euthanized and their quality of life could have improved. This is why a follower would object to euthanasia. The case study of Dr Nigel Cox can be used.
We can’t make things equal because the way we are multiplying, the poor of the world will need more and more. Hardin explains “the tragedy of the commons” and while with good intentions, could never be implemented in the world today. He argues with this that it only takes one person (or in our case, one nation) to ruin the system, which is unfortunately inevitable. Hardin would clearly be going against Altruism and Deontology’s line of thinking. Hardin would say that we must look after ourselves because by helping the poor, it would only lead to the downfall of everyone.
He logically acknowledges that mutual ruin will occur inevitably because people would like to share resources with others for being humane. The author claims that because of the irresponsible system of control, the land, water, and oceanic fishery will eventually ruin in the further. He also argues that a World Food Bank as supporting a new commons is doing wrong and he consists that the food reserve will not enough in the future. The author suggests that the wise and competent countries should not rescue the poor countries each time as an emergency occurring because he advocates that the poor countries should rescue for themselves. He points out that the population in the poor countries increases incredibly each year but their food reserve is not corresponding to the population.
Balko has an angry tone about the fact that the government believes people should depend on others for their health, and that they shouldn't take responsibility. "...holding food companies responsible for the bad habits of unhealthy consumers"(Balko). Balko argues that what we choose to eat and our decisions is anything but the public's concern. He believes that an individual's lifestyle is his own and private concern. By promoting public health, it is only encouraging the people to make worst decisions because it is no longer their responsiblity, but the public's.
In the past, poverty was determined by a lack of items essential to survival. "Whether it be directly through starvation, or indirectly through sickness brought on by insufficient nourishment, poverty must necessarily lead to the extinction of the physical life” (Iceland, 2006, Ch.3). This definition made determining who was living in an impoverished state very ease; howver, as the times changed, so did the definition of poverty. Today, there is lots of pressure to determine an exact line for who is deserving of government aid, and who should be expected to fend for themselves. The definition of poverty that was effective in the past, is now defined as Absolute poverty.
| | My ethical position for the world hunger is the moral relativism because it offers no moral guidance. It merely tells us that any particular action would be approved by one group, but denounced by another.The world hunger is a very broad and controversial issue but let's start with some questions:What should those of us in affluent nations do to help impoverished countries and individuals, especially those facing episodic or endemic hunger? It just slightly changes it. We should now ask: “Are we obliged to insure that they have adequate food entitlements?” That requires us to ask several derivative questions: do we have obligations to encourage (or coerce) their governments to enhance their entitlements? Are we obligated to establish ongoing trade relations with these countries to enhance their citizens’ entitlements?Do we have obligations to send food or to help distribute food when the country cannot do so on its own?
WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF FAMINE, POVERTY, HUNGER AND AFFLUENCE, PRESENT A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF YOUR VIEW ON WHETHER OR NOT THE RICH NATIONS OF THE WORLD HAVE THE MORAL RESPONSIBILITIES TO HELP THE POOR. INTRODUCTION It will be apt to come to clarity of the above mentioned terms before beginning as they will make the major subject of this essay. Famine is an extreme or general scarcity of food in a country or a large geographical area. Poverty is said to be the state or condition of having little or no money, goods or means of support; the state of lack and the inability to provide for oneself. Hunger can be defined as the strong desire for food.
Likewise, we are accused as lame for not doing anything to resolve the problems the country is facing right now. We are not only being tried but also being challenged to do what must concerned citizens do. The social issues involved are poverty, existence of organized crime syndicates, and the existence of a manipulative justice system. Poverty existed since the ancient times and that if we do not have the attitude and the will to banish it from the system little by little, then it will just spread like a plague. Poverty has been the ultimate root of the existence of organized crime syndicates.
Problem: Regulatory Commission did not see the adverse affect of dumping the waste directly into the river. B. Dilemma: Top Management taking advantage of the new policy and would dump the waste directly into the river. Nathan knows very well that dumping the waste into the river will endanger the environment particularly aquatic resources and he opposes management decision. C. Case Analysis Model This case will be analysed based on Managing Company Ethics and Social Responsibility.
Doing the Right Thing Wendella M. Murphy Philosophy 208 Instructor: Michael Kellam July 31, 2013 Doing the Right Thing In today’s society people wonder why those who are in a better position financially do nothing to help feed and aid the hungry as much as those from a lower income bracket. When Peter Singer wrote the article: “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” he wanted to shed light on how little aid is given to impoverished countries by nations and their governments who are financially secure (Singer, 1972). Singer points out how people living in East Bengal, India were dying due to poverty, a cyclone, and civil war in nineteen seventy one and by not doing the right thing, nations that were giving little to no aid were, in a sense, morally wrong in their actions. Singer’s goal and argument is simple and direct: people that live in a more financially secure nation who are aware of situations similar to those in East Bengal and do little to correct the problems cannot, in any way, justify their actions (Singer, 1972). Included in his article is that, as a whole, we need to change our views on morality and our way of life that we take for granted every day and if it is within our power to keep bad things from happening then we have a moral obligation to do so without sacrificing what we see as morally important (Singer, 1972).