The pond example in Singer's article is a powerful thought experiment that strongly suggests two moral commitments most of us share:
(1) The value of a human life always outweighs the value of luxury items, such that if I were to walk past a child drowning but did not because I feared ruining my clothes, most of us would rightly say I behaved immorally. Putting the value of luxury items (like clothes) before a human life is morally wrong.
(2) We believe that when it is in our power to prevent a bad situation from happening, a moral responsibility exists. We know we believe this because if I walked past the child and did nothing, when all I needed to do to save his life is to wade into shallow water without causing harm to my well-being, most of us would rightly say I behaved immorally; I ought to have tried to save the child instead of hurrying home to watch my favorite TV show.
Do you agree that Singer has shown us to have a moral responsibility to prevent suffering from taking place when it is in our power to do so? And if so, does this show that we are morally obligated to help children dying of famine in other countries who are in equally dire straights as the drowning child in his example? Can we walk away from such cases without doing nothing and still consider our behavior moral?
Through the pond example, Singer showed us that we have a moral responsibility to prevent suffering from taking place when it is in our power to do so. He also argues that a human life is more valuable than that of any luxuary item that we may posses. In a perfecct world, there would not be any child dying of famine but every single person would do anything possible, sacrificing whatever is possible to help anyone that was in need. But since this is not a perfect world then there are also other factors to take into consideration.I will say that if we do posses the power to help in whatever way, then we should do so. If we helped out to the extreme way as suggested then we would be considered within the povety level in our society. So where is the balance of what is acceptable and what is not. There are some people that have ample money to help with and yet they do not and the people that do not have as much do help when they can. I beleive that yes we should help out but also make it appropriate as to not make our lives to an extreme as well. (not to sound selfish)
ReplyDeleteYou do not sound selfish, Jessy. Ultimately, at the end of each and every day when you are laying in bed with your head on your pillow, who is making sure that you have that bed and that pillow or that food on the table? it's you. Yes possibly if you have a significant other, however, you have to make sure that you have the stuff you need. Therefore it's not selfish.
DeleteI do understand why it does feel like we are being selfish, because it is so saddening to see people staving, and dying from starvation. It saddens me each and every time I see so much food wasted at restaurants and the surplus in agricultural products that are just wasted- they biodegrade into nothing.
I hope that our society realizes how we can solve this problem with the resources that we already have today. We do have enough food to feed the entire world. It is just not being effectively distributed.
GOD BLESS OUR EARTH!!
Yes, if we have the power to help we should. There is no way let I am goingh to let my family suffer because, someone thinks I need to give my money away.Most people work very hard for what they have. I do think you are right by saying if you have exces money you can donate by all means you should. I do not think that you are selfish at all.
DeleteI don't think you sound selfish in any way. I believe the same thing. Give what you can but if it makes a person struggle then its time to stop giving and hope that another person can give more easily.
DeleteI agree with Singer that it is in our moral responsibilities to prevent suffering from taking place, whatever the case may be. In the drowning child example, I feel we are morally obligated to save that child. I feel as though society has shaped us into that human being. I can't think of one person who would walk by a drowning child and not jump in to save them. I think we would feel heartless. I could not live with myself if I did not attempt to save someone drowning. In the case of dying children in foreign countries, living in famine, I don't feel we are "morally obligated" to prevent suffering for them because that is on a whole new level. Like the article states, five dollars a person would save their lives. Five dollars is pocket change for most of us, however, we never stop and think that something as little as FIVE dollars could save someone's life. But when taking famine into consideration, we also have people right here in our own country starving. Maybe not as extreme and heard of as foreign countries, but nonetheless poverty takes place in America and some people here need our donations to prevent them from suffering, also. So I guess I have mixed feelings about us being morally obligated to prevent them from famine as best as we can. I do agree that the value of a human life outweighs luxury items however. It is so easily overlooked because we don't physically see it, we just hear statistics about it. Society has shaped us to have to physically see something for it to touch our hearts personally, rather than just witnessing it on the news or reading it in a magazine. It doesn't seem as close to home or much of a reality unless I personally SEE it.
ReplyDeleteI very strongly agree with your comment about the poverty that is taking place in America right now! That is something that I believe we have a moral obligation to help with. I think we get so consumed with looking at the problems with the world we often overlook the problems that exist right here in our own country.
DeleteI agree with you on both opinions. We do have the moral obligation to prevent suffering if we can stop it. We also should help people living in famine. I think more people would help if it didn't get so overwhelming because there is so many people who live in poor conditions all over the world.
DeleteRight Amanda, if their was not SO many people living in famine it would be easier to try and prevent that from happenings. It is a problem that has gotten so out of control it is not in one persons power to save the people living in famine around the world. If I had the ability and the money to help the everyone in the world I would, but it is just unrealistic.
DeleteI like the point you made about helping your our country. I think it is always more impacting if you can actually go preform a service for someone and connect on a personal level rather that just sending money. But I believe we are obligated to help those around the would if that is a cause that you believe in. I would never let my time or money go to a cause that I did not understand or support.
DeleteThe pond example is a great example of showing that each of us has a moral responsibility to prevent suffering and I think that everyone (let's hope everyone) would save the child's life if they were put in that situation. I know that I couldn’t live with myself if I didn’t do anything to save the child’s life and I think most of us can agree on that. But why we don’t feel the same when a child in Belgium is dying and we don’t help them is because we do not witness it firsthand and it does not directly affect us. I agree with Singer that if we can prevent suffering from happening then we ought to do so, but I also think that we should always keep our own best interests in mind and if preventing someone else's suffering means that we must suffer ourselves, then we must question whether we should take action or not. I also believe in the idea of "ask and ye shall receive." If an advocate for saving starving children were to approach me and ask if I would like to donate to a famine relief fund, I would have no problem with it and happily donate to the cause. But, on that note, I am reluctant to go out of my way to spend a large amount of energy, time, and money for this cause. Maybe this is me being selfish, or maybe it is human nature, but I have my own problems to deal with, and my problems are my first priority. For those that cannot help what kind of situation they are in I believe it is our obligation to do what we see fit to help them. But, this is not a perfect world, and even the most moral man is not perfect. A man once explained to me that the reason we do not help save others from distant countries is because the problem is presented as a "them and us" situation. The problems presented only directly affects "them" and we do not see it as a pressing issue to "us." If we can break that boundary and unify "them and us" and see their problems as problems of our own, then we will make forward progress and create what Singer called “a global village” (Singer).
ReplyDeleteI agree with you unless we are witnessing something first hand it is hard to morally take responsibility for it. I believe that the problems around the world are realistically out of our personal control.
DeleteSInger's pond example does show that each of us has a moral obligation to prevent suffering if we can. However I do not feel that his example can relate to the problem of famine. The example of the child drowning is a very specific and individualized example. Of course if any of us encountered a child drowning in a pond, we would do the right thing and save the child, even if it meant ruining our clothes etc. While this act could be considered morally right, I think that it would more just be an instinctive act by any one of us to save the child. If I was to find myself in this situation, I would not act because it would be considered morally right. I would simply act to save the life of the child.
ReplyDeleteI do not feel however that this example can be related to the epidemic of famine. Obviously if you once again individualize the situation I would agree with it. Let's say a child shows up on your door step, starving and almost dying of hunger. Of course you are going to help the child, take them into your home and feed them/help them in any way possible. This once again is not "morally right". It is just what you do. But this is a very small scale example. Imagine if an entire country of starving children showed up on your doorstep...then what would you do? You cannot feed and help all of them.
This is the problem that occurs when trying to help the problem of famine. While obviously we should all do what we can to help e.g. charity work. Giving up our luxury goods and falling into the so called "poverty line" ourselves is not the answer. It is neither morally right nor morally wrong to keep what we have earned. If we do indeed want to be "morally right" then by all means help charities that work in countries where famine is a problem. But Singers "global village" idea is, in my opinion, something that is never going to be attainable.
So yes, the pond example is good for very specific individual cases, but in my opinion, does not relate to the global problem of famine.
I can see your point, but I disagree. I think the "global village" is attainable. I'll use this story to illustrate my point: There were a million starfish washed up on the beach. Without the ocean to sustain them they would die, and they couldn't get back to the water even though it was just a few yards away. A man walked along the beach, picking up starfish and throwing them back into the ocean, thereby saving them. Another man walked along the beach and saw the first man saving starfish. He approached the first man and asked him; "What are you doing?" The first man replied; "Saving these starfish." The second man then asked; "But there are over a million! You can't possibly save them all, why even try? There's just too many and it can't be done." The first man smiled and picked up another starfish. Just before he threw it back into the ocean, he said; "It's true. I can't save them all. But I can save this one."
DeleteMy point is that looking at the "big picture" is daunting and can be overwhelming. If I save as many as I can, and you save as many as you can, and my neighbors save as many as they can, and so on and so on, the picture becomes smaller and more manageable.
I agree that if we don't place ourselves in a position to be able to help, that does no one any good.
Yes, we all have a moral responsibility to help prevent suffering. I would prefer to help out by offering charity work, help at the food bank, and raise money for worthy causes such as famine. However, I do not feel that by giving up my bank account with my hard-earned money to help children dying of famine in other countries is going to benefit that country. I strongly believe that you can walk away from that situation and still consider yourself to be behaving morally. The reason I say this is that because by walking past the pond and seeing a child drowning you are going to gain some kind of altruistic behavior saving that child. I do believe a person is better to donate time than money because you are in a see the effects of your time over money. Just because I have temp has issues in my closet does not mean that I am morally and just for having those 10 pairs of shoes. It may mean that I have bought one pair shoes over the last 10 years, so with that make me a immoral person? I often think that the more money you have the worse off you are, money has a tendency to go to your brain. But I also feel in life you deserve to have your own cushion in case something happens to your vehicle your house or your kids.
ReplyDeletethere are so many different ways to go about giving back and donating. I agree that it does not only have to be financial but it can also be through your energy/time. For example, I will be volunteering my business services, as a photographer, for the domestic violence awareness walk here in Billings on October 6th.
DeletePart of the goal of the organization is to prevent something bad from happening-i.e. being abused --getting punched in the face by your significant other. So I do not believe that the only way to donate is through money or by helping with only reducing the famine rate.
Good point Amanda. I believe people could help in other ways other than money. Putting in your own time with charity work seems to show more than when you donate money. At least in my experiences, when I've donated money, I've never known what exactly it goes to.
DeleteI think you brought up a good point Amanda. In America, what we see as normal, ie: 10 pairs of shoes, is seen as excess by other cultures. When you put it in the context of buying one pair once a year for ten years though, it doesn't seem excessive at all. I also hadn't given thought to what kind of help we are morally obligated to do beyond financial. Giving of our time is just as important, as you pointed out. Also, I agree with you that if we don't provide for ourselves and families, how can we help others? Actually, if you think about it in those terms, we are just as morally obliged to take care of ourselves as well as others!
DeleteI agree, I think we all should give something, time, money or donate items. I do not believe that our charity should be required. We should be able to decide what and how much we want to give, as long as we give, we are morally correct. We can not solve all the worlds problems, but we can help solve a problem that is important to us.
Delete
ReplyDeleteI do agree that Signer has shown us that there is a moral responsibility to prevent suffering from taking place when it is in our power to do so. Undoubtedly, the example of the child in the water drowning-pulls on the heart-strings of pretty much everybody I would have to say-if it didnt, that person would have to be very self-centered if they would just walk past a drowning child.
With that said, I do not believe we are obligated or have a duty to do make sure everyone is fed and if we do not, it would be wrong- and could have consequences.
There are so many different ways to help whether it is in our community or outside of this country. I do not believe it only has to be in the one direction of helping people eat. There are so many different ways to help the world and to prevent bad things from happening.
Because it seems so obvious to help the child drowning, and that most people would agree with that, and yet so many people don't agree that we have a moral duty/obligation to make sure that people can eat-there seems to be a major disconnect to what Signer is trying to express and convey.
I believe it is important to be balanced and realistic. Everybody has a different viewpoint on what an affluent persons' finances are. There is a certain point, when a person becomes so affluent and so financially abundant that putting 50% of your income toward a cause like this wouldn't hurt them whatsoever. But a good majority of Americas do not have a huge percentage to send to help other people eat. Many Americans live paycheck to paycheck. Furthermore, everything may seem financially safe and secure today for a middle-class American, but the unexpected of the future can devastate a person's finances. For example, when I was married, we were doing fine, however, suddenly my son was attacked by a pit bull dog,which required emergency surgery from a very specialized eye doctor and the medical bills far exceeded what we had in our savings account. We had to sell our home to cover the medical expenses. We had donated and given to many nonprofit organizations- and in those times we asked for help and we did not receive any help. From that experience, I learned it is vital for me to make sure that I have a lot of money saved up (even more than I would even think I would need) to be prepared for the unexpected. You just never know when something devastating can happen. So for me to donate a large portion of my income, I would have to be making a considerable sized income. At the end of the day, it's me having to look out for myself and my family.
I believe if it was a mandatory requirement to send in that amount of money, it could really demotivate people from wanting to work harder to make more money just to know that it will taken. In addition, I believe, it would decrease the self-fulfillment of giving as it would be a requirement instead of something that you could choose to do.
Overall, I believe helping out and giving as much as possible without hurting myself and my family is absolutely important-very ethical. However, for me, it's important to become sustainable for myself and my family before I can fully give a huge portion of my income.
The best I can do right now is pray for all of those people suffering from the famine.
Serena, I agree with most of what you have stated above. I agree that you should take care of yourself first, since if not, you would not be in any position to help anyone. My thought is, if everyone, rich or poor, donated 5 dollars, it could stop the famine. Why don't we? It doesn't matter how much money you make and you don't have to donate a large sum. Many small sums will do the job. I sense in a lot of posts here, that people feel the wealthy should donate, since they have an abundant supply of funds. But, more times than not, one person, you and me, can make a difference. Shouldn't we donate, as well?
DeleteI agree Serena. We do have a moral obligation to donate to people who live in famine. I also believe we should only do so if it means no suffering to the person giving. I as well believe its okay to have extra funds put aside in case an event should come to happen where you need the funds. I can't count how many times something has happened to me where I had to pull money from my savings and still barely getting by.
Delete
ReplyDeleteI definitely think Singer did a great job at reasoning why we have a moral responsibility to prevent suffering when it is in our power. His pond example is particularly gravitating but somewhat hard for me to compare with children dying in other countries. I have extreme sympathy for those sorts of things. It really hit me after reading about the millions that die every year from malnutrition, especially the ones that could have been prevented. However, I start to morph my thinking into a political stance when it comes to foreign aid. We hardly help our own people, let alone the veterans, which is completely unacceptable. Reaching out to our own people first is what I think should be done. With that said I do not believe we are morally obligated to help the people/children dying of famine in other countries. I think we should always do what we want to make us feel good.
I am glad that there are people who have sympathy for starving people in other countries. Don't get me wrong I do as well; however I don't any other countries sending over money or help for us when we have national disasters’. Look at hurricane Katrina we were left to fend for ourselves. Yet when China had the tsunami hit 2005, we were right there with help for them. I think you are right by saying that we need to help our people before we help anyone else!
DeleteI agree with you Amanda. We are always helping all the other parts of the world. However, I don't see other countries helping us without expecting us to pay them back. We do owe China billions of dollars because America can't afford the expenses. We send financial aid to so many other countries around the world when we can not even pay for our own bills and expenses here in America-we have to borrow the money from China.
DeleteIt really just does not make sense whatsoever.
Yes, I do agree with Singer on the moral responsibility that we have to those around us. If I were to walk past a young child drowning in a pond and continue walking by without helping, I would hold that against myself for the rest of my life. Seeing someone in danger and knowing I could have helped them but didn’t would consume my every thought. In a case like that, I would rule out any luxuries and help that child. It’s simple, my clothes are material items that should not have a greater value than another humans’ life. As for the moral obligation to help those dying of famine in other countries, I believe that if we are have the accommodations to do so we should. Someone that is living paycheck to paycheck can still spare five dollars to help those who are starving. Someone that is very wealthy should be sending a monthly payment of considerably more than five dollars. BUT that is something that would happen in a perfect world. Not everyone is so selfless that they would give the five dollars out of their minimal earnings for the month. Those living paycheck to paycheck do not always think about those dying of starvation, they think of going out and treating themselves to a nice dinner or buying those luxury items that they have been wanting for so long. It is a reality in our world that we live for ourselves. We work hard for what we get and don’t think about those across the world. We think about those immediately in front of us, our friends that need an extra dollar for lunch or the little kid that fell and broke an arm. We will, without thinking, hand over that extra dollar or tend to the injured child, but we just don’t immediately think to help those across the world who are in more dire need than either of those examples. It is something that I wish had never occurred in our world. It is a reality that is hard to understand without being in that situation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with every single aspect of your response.
ReplyDeleteI think most people could give up five dollars a month-however I think Signer was suggesting much more.
I like the part where you said-that someone on a minimal income is thinking about enjoying a nice dinner and buying those luxury items that they have been waiting so long for. Isn't that the truth. A person on a minimal income (which is a lot of Americans) have to save up over a long period of time to get what someone would call a luxury item. A luxury item could be thought of as a computer, GPS- navigation system, smart phone, printers, even in the example of Signer - a nice pair of shoes... In which these things are actually necessary and a requirement in our society... You can't even go to college if you do not have a computer or printer.
when I think of luxury items, I don't think about shoes as a luxury item, if you're spending $1000 on a pair of shoes-- well then by golly that would be a luxury-- but not a $50 of shoes-- not here in America-- when I think of luxury, I think of yachts and owning multiple homes that are valued at $5-$10 million apiece. Those types of people should definitely be putting a lot of money towards helping reduce the famine rate in the world.
Serena,
DeleteI think the debate on what constitutes a luxury item is very interesting, Here is my question, if we own a 50 inch flat screen television are we morally obligated to get the 32 inch version and donate the $1000 price difference to help end famine in other countries?
I think most people will agree with the pond example in Singer's article, but I believe our morals are strongest when we are involved with the situation that needs our help. For example, if we are walking by the pond and see the child, I believe almost anyone would help. On the other hand if the tragedy is out of sight, it is also out of mind and we do not feel morally obligated to contribute. Another example would be contributing to the Red Cross, they need money all year around and struggle to obtain the funds needed to help people in the face of disaster. But, when Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, the contributions went through the roof. I believe this was only because it was broadcast on television. We saw the destruction and suffering. If we don't see it, we don't think about it. So, even though I believe we are morally obligated to end all suffering, we don't because we don't seek it out, we wait until the suffering is shown to us before we act.
ReplyDeleteI could not agree more. I have seen the statements of "not seeing the suffering before it is put in front of our eyes". But don't we close our eyes to the suffering we could see in this country? The child that goes to school without a proper winter jacket? The homeless Vet that stands by the side of the road? The family across the street that has to make a decision to either eat tonight or pay a bill and not lose their home. I think it has become convenient for a lot of us to 'overlook' or 'close our eyes' to the suffering that goes on right in front of our face every day. It only becomes visible when it is put on the Media.
DeleteI personally believe that it is our moral responsibility to prevent suffering from taking place if we have the power to. I can agree with Singer in the aspect of helping save the downing child because we have the ability to prevent that child from dying. On the other hand it is harder for me to agree with helping children in other countries dying from famine. I do believe in donating to charities to help the children that are starving in other countries, but it is hard to know how much to donate and what charities need it the most. There are so many different charities and it is impossible for one person to give to all of them. Singer states that it is easier for us to prevent a bad situation from happening if it is close to us. I think this is where giving to charities is hard for most people because we cannot physically see the starving children and how do we know if our money is truly benefitting them. I feel like I am contradicting myself when I say I would not walk away from the drowning girl because this behavior would be moral, but I can ignore the children in other countries dying from famine and this behavior is not moral. I feel like Singer is asking a lot from people that work hard for their own money and deserve the luxuries that they can provide for themselves. Don’t get me wrong if I could save all of the dying people in the world I would do so, but I think it is unrealistic from people to give up their lives to try to take care of a situation that is realistically out of most people’s control. I do agree with Singer in the aspect of preventing something bad from happening, but I think if you’re not in the situation at the moment it is harder to reach out to others.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Singer in that we have a moral obligation to prevent a bad situation from happening if it is within our power to do so. I believe in the pond example, most people would try to save the child without hesitation. But jumping in a pond to try and save a drowning child and helping people dying from famine are two completely different endeavors. Would I like to be able to help starving people/children? Of course I would. However, as a single mom with three teenagers to feed and clothe, I’m barely keeping my head above water as it is. That’s one of the reasons I’m back in college; to make a better life for my family. If I don’t send any extra moneys I may have from time to time to helping starving children, does that make me an immoral person? No way. I firmly believe that if I had greater financial means, I would help in a heartbeat. I do occasionally volunteer my time in a variety of ways such as Look Good/Feel Better and well as Big Brothers/Big Sisters and I feel it does help a little bit.
ReplyDeleteI get really excited when I read of celebrities who are helping out big time. For example, Queen Latifah has been working (for many years) in partnership with Children's Safe Drinking Water in an effort to bring safe drinking water to those in need around the world. What makes me cringe is when I read of celebrities such as Kelly Osborne who spent $250,000.00 on a diamond encrusted manicure. What??? Now how many starving children do you think Kelly Osborne could have saved with the money spent on that "one-time manicure"?
I like how you showed the analogy of how celebrities use their money well and maybe not so well! I know that some of these "famous" people put their money to good use by helping out so much! But then there are people who have 7 cars and that manicure! Some people don't care
DeleteI definitely agree with both of you. It is frustrating to also watch programs like mtv's Cribs where you get to see inside celebrity houses. I've seen more than one episode where the celeb talks about how they have this huge expensive kitchen but they don't even cook. I'm always like "why do you need that then!?!" They'll open their fridge and there will be a few drinks and that's all in it because it isn't even used. It's always nice to see celebs that actually give back to charities.
DeleteRight, celebs well most of them have to ability to donate millions without causing in lose to themselves. I think this is great and I think it is their responsibilty to take charge and use their money for good instead of like you said Desiree their kitchens. I can honestly say if I had millions and millions of dollars I would try to begin to save the world.
DeleteI think that we should do as much as we can to prevent suffering when we have the power to. The pond example to me seems very irrational because I think that everybody would jump in the water to help a drowning child. Anybody putting luxury items before human life is acting immoral. Sure we cannot fix all of the famine or pay for everybody suffering but people can help. For example, there are fast food organizations asking for donations to help hungry children. I donate when I have extra cash because I think of how horrible it would be. It does not make me a better person than anybody else but it is a personal choice. Everybody posseses their moral customs on what they ought to do. It comes down to the choices someone is willing to make to help another.
ReplyDeleteI liked what you said about giving to donations at fast food places and other stores. I do the same thing. It's easy to not think about those suffering until someone asks if you would like to give a few bucks and donate. I always donate a few dollars when I see those things too. If organizations want to get people to donate they need to put it into people's lives otherwise we get too caught up living our own lives to think about those starving in other places in the world.
DeleteJonas,
DeleteOn the outside I agree with you that anyone who puts luxury items before human life is acting immoral. However, I think that is much easier to say then carry out. I myself am very guilty of placing luxury items ahead of donating. Could I sell my flat screen TV or other expensive things I have that I do not actually need? Yes, am I going to? No.
I as well like what you said about donating when you have a little extra cash to fast food places, i however would love to do that but i rarely have extra cash and when i do have extra cash i normally save it for the next month. I know that sounds selfish of me.
DeleteJonas,
DeleteI agree, if there were easier ways to donate, like donation jars in all businesses, more people would donate. My employer allows us to donate every payday to almost any charity we choose. I never see the money, since it is deducted right from my paycheck, this makes it easy to donate. I also, don't think it is selfish to keep what you have earned, since I can't justify giving money to someone who is able but not willing to work for it themselves, but there are many people in this world that can not get the money for themselves.
I understand Singer’s analogy of the child drowning in the pond, but do not feel that that situation compares with ending famine in an undeveloped country. Yes, both are immediate emergencies; however, the child drowning is a onetime emergency. Most people would react to that situation instinctively. There would be no moral dilemma. You hear people say they didn’t think about it, they just did it. I think that would apply to this situation.
ReplyDeleteRelieving a famine involving millions of people is a different type of emergency, one that is harder to resolve because of the scope. The dilemma seems to be just how much a person is morally obligated to give. The most obvious conclusion is the more you have, the more you give. John Arthur’s argument says you aren’t obligated to do this, because you deserve to have and keep what you earned. Peter Singer’s argument says you ought to give until it hurts.
I think there is a moral middle ground between these two arguments. I also think that both men ignore one basic fact about human beings. I think we are inherently selfish because that’s a survival mechanism. I also think we are inherently generous, especially to those who are weaker. (Yes, there are predators among us who prey on the weaker, but I’m not addressing that issue.)
These two facets of human nature pull against each other, but if the generous nature of man didn’t exist, there would be no moral philosophy to worry about! We would just look after ourselves and that would be the end of it. There is also something to be said about selfishness. Up to a point, it serves us well, in that I have to have a home before I can offer shelter to someone. I have to gather food for me and mine before I can offer someone else a meal. I have to have the means to donate before I can give anything away.
So are we morally bound to do all we can to end famine? Yes. Are we morally bound to give up our luxuries in order to do so? Perhaps. Who determines what a luxury is? Where is the line drawn? Is a luxury anything we don’t absolutely need to sustain life? Is having a dishwasher in your house a luxury you’re morally bound to give up in order to do the right thing and donate the money to famine relief? The speedboat? This year’s model car instead of an older one? If I were to look at my neighbor and say with scorn, “You could have given that money to the hungry, instead of buying a new television!” couldn’t he say the same to me about my brand new power tools? It seems like a silent mutual pact not to say anything about each other’s perceived luxuries so neither one of us feels guilty about having more than “enough”.
That’s another question I have, how much of my moral obligation stems from guilt? Do I feel guilty about my incredible good fortune to live in a country that provides me the opportunity to provide food and shelter for my family? I know that helping others is the right thing to do, I just don’t know if it’s because I’m so morally certain or just feeling undeserving of my relative wealth.
Cindy,
DeleteYou bring up very good points. I feel we are all morally obligated to end famine, but not at our own demise. We work hard for our money and for the things we purchase with it, why should we do without it? I do believe that the line is drawn in each individual. We should all give, but want we are comfortable with and to whom we choose to give it to. I do not believe we should give to a cause we don't believe in or give as much as possible, so that we live a meager existence.
I think it is in everybody's power to save someone if they saw something they could do to help. I know i would. At least a quarter of the world lives in poverty. That is how most family's grow up and that is how most family's survive. They are born and raised to know they are less fortunate than others. Do i think they deserve help? yes! Every less fortunate deserves help. If we do not help them i don't think that is morally wrong on our part. They learn to help themselves but when we help them i think it does a lot for them! I don't think the analogy of a child drowning in a pond follows how other countries are in need. I think where we grew up i feel extremely lucky. I believe there are things in our life that we could give up to help the less fortunate, does everybody? no! We cannot do everything to end famine but everybody can start to help. Every little bit helps over there.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you for the most part. I think tha we geew up in America as being lukey. However I also feel that we had our fourfathers to lay that history down for us to be so lucky. Also, not everyone in America is so luky to lead a good life. Meny chrildren live on the streets and go hurgny evey night.
DeleteBrooke,
DeleteI agree with you on the point that it is not our moral responsibility to help end famine in other countries. There are people starving in our own country who need our help. I do not think that they "learn to help themselves" clearly if that were the case millions of children would not be dying every year from famine. The environments those children live in are disgusting and there seems to be a lack of any real progress.
I as well didnt think that analogy of the drowning child in the pond follows how other countries are in need. They are two completely different things.
DeleteI agree, the analogy of the drowning child is far less severe and an easier situation to stop from happening than the starvation of millions around the world. This problem is simply out of control and is going to take a lot more of a solution than donating 5 dollars to a charity.
DeleteI too agree that humans have a moral responsibility to help out those in need. I think it is just automatic in most people to jump in and try to help someone. If a child was seen drowning, I think most people would not even have to think for a second before jumping in to save them.
ReplyDeleteI think the reason a lot of people do not equate a child drowning in front of us with children suffering from starvation in a country far away is the saying "Out of sight, out of mind". We try to help out those in front of us when we see there is an emergency. If we don't see something in front of us we tend to not think about it. I know being from a small town in eastern Montana, I never saw a homeless person until I traveled with my family to a larger city. I was not around them so I never thought about them before that even though I knew they existed. Once I saw homelessness myself, it made me feel awful. I asked my parents if we could do anything and we ended up giving these two young boys some money and some food we had with us because it was so shocking to us. If we lived with these starving children in our own back yard, we would try to give more I believe.
I do think that we need to help others as much as possible whether they are two feet away or two continents away. People are people all the same. However, I don't see how it helps the world in general if everyone gives away all of their wealth so that they are in poverty too. I think that would just make more poverty. I think people should try to give within their means. I do feel angry sometimes when I hear about people who have millions or even billions of dollars because I cannot even fathom why they would need such an excess of money to themselves.
I think that Singer makes a good point. He uses the example of a child drowning in a shallow pond and relates it to the many people dying of famine in other countries. This example is meant to make us stop and think what moral behavior really is. Almost everyone would agree than they would save drowning child, it's kind of like a "duh" moment because it is so blatantly obvious that a human life is more important than clothing or getting home to watch a TV show. But if this is the case, than people who don't give charity to famine stricken countries are behaving immorally and putting their possessions in front of a human life. So in this respect I think that Singer makes a strong argument.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand I think there are some distinct differences in the two situations. Number one is the fact that there are thousands of people starving and not one single child, like in the drowning case. I think that people are more willing to help in a situation that they know and can see they are making a difference. But not so inclined in the case where their 5 dollars might end up feeding a starving child in a country a million miles away. Another factor that differs is the fact that the drowing child is right in front of you and not in some other country far away. I think that if a situation like this is happening people will help because they feel like they have the power to do so. I think that many people don't give to charity because it is not something they think about, It is kind of like the saying "out of sight out of mind", people don't usually think about famine on a daily basis they are usually too busy with their own problems in their daily life.
To a certain extent, I agree with the statement that human life is of more value than the luxurious items and that we should prevent/help bad situations when possible. If you are fortunate enough in your life, I think it would be great for everyone to have a balance of indulging in some luxuries in life, but also doing what you can to give back, whether it be donating time, money or supplies to others in need.
ReplyDeleteI did not agree with Singer’s view that, "Putting value of luxury items (like clothes) before a human life is morally wrong." I feel as though his statement is guilting you into helping others. That if you choose to treat yourself, you should be ashamed because instead you should be helping/preventing unfortunate situations/people – As though you are selfish...
We live in a country that places significance in what your possessions are and in turn gives us sense of success and happiness. It is advertised everyday, if you own a fancy car, fancy clothes and have a lot of money, you are someone or something of importance. While I do not agree with that, I will admit that I too want nice things that are unnecessary. Truthfully, most of us sometimes lose track of what is most important in life and focus on things of similar nature - I do!
Ultimately, what I believe to be important and moral is when you help yourself and work hard, you can in return help others. Begin in your own community - there are so many people in need of assistance in many ways: homelessness, hunger, abuse, addictions, etc.
I believe that singer has made very valid points as to why we have a moral responsibility to prevent suffering from taking place when it's within our power to do so. He makes very compelling points that if it will not cause us any hardship and may only require the absence of luxury items in our lives, than we have an moral obligation to help. I'm not convinced that this shows we have a moral obligation to help children in other countries, especially when we have children starving everyday in our OWN country. I personally believe that we should have an obligation to help those who are suffering in our own country before we help those in other countries. I think the example of the drowning child is slightly exaggerated, of course if we see someone in trouble we are going to help them, however, I do not agree with the analogy that it is our responsibility to end famine in other countries. I think on the outside it is easy to say, yes we should help those countries and give up our own possessions so that we can help, that is undeniably the popular answer. How many of us are actually willing to do that though, it is easy to say that is the right thing to do, but until personal property is given away to help others it is simply words. I do think we can walk away from such cases without doing anything and still consider ourselves to be moral. I do not donate money to end famine in other countries, however, I do donate money for other causes and still believe I behave morally and I am ok with that decision.
ReplyDeleteYes I agree that Singer has shown us to have a moral responsibility to prevent suffering when in our power. I as well believe that we should help children dying of famine, but without making our lives worse for us. By making our lives worse and their lives better than that wouldnt make matters any better. I dont think that we can walk away without doing nothing and still consider our behavior moral. How can we do that while know we could have/ can make someone else's life better and did nothing about it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Singer that we have a moral responsibility to prevent suffering if we have the ability to do so. In the example with the pond, i believe saving the child would benefit more people than it would hurt, therefore you should risk ruining your clothes to save the child. However, when it comes to donating money to help starving people, I don't see how me spending as much money as I can will save anybody. The only thing that it would accomplish is making my life harder, because I have less money to buy food and other necessities with. I believe that if you have excess money/time to help than it would be a moral decision to do so, but if you don't have any excess of either than there isn't much that you can do, and you shouldn't consider yourself immoral because of it.
ReplyDeleteYou do have a moral responsibility to prevent suffering. Don't you think that it should be within the US? I have a very hard time with sending my money to outher places to save their chrildren from dying when we can't keep ours from starving.The other hard part I have with sending my money somewhere else, is how meny teriorist groups there are that we don't kknow about.How aful would that be to find out this whole time you are funding a group like that!I agree with you that by giving all your money away is going to put you in the same position.
DeleteI believe that the suffering going on around the world is out of our control no matter how much money we spend trying to save the starving people. There are so many charities and it is impossible for one person to donate to all of them. I believe that saving the drowning girl is our moral responsibility, but saving starving children around the world is not.
DeleteSinger's pond scenario is a great example of determining moral obligation. I believe that his ideas of the drowning child are relevant to famine in the world. If one has the ability to help another in worse circumstance, then they are morally obligated to do so. If a person were to walk away from the drowning child because they were afraid or ruining their clothes, or missing a TV show, then their actions would be immoral. Likewise, if people knowingly "walk away from" the starving peoples' situation because they do not wish to lose their luxuries, then their actions, too, would be immoral. The only way it is moral to turn away from either situations is if in providing action, said person would suffer more than that of the recipient.
ReplyDeleteI agree the pond example is a perfect example to show how should help those in need IF it's in our power to do so. The number of people in this world or even in the United States for that matter that have excess luxuries is a small percentage compared to those who don't. I'm a single mom with two kids who can barely afford to feed my own kids let alone some starving kid in a far away country. However, if you do have the power to help out those in need I think it should be done because it's something you want to do because you know it's the right thing not because someone is telling you that you have to. Luxuries or not if you decide to walk away without helping someone it does not mean you're immoral or your behavior is immoral, it just means your human. And human beings make mistakes.
ReplyDeleteWhat a great post! I couldn't bring my thoughts into words, and if i could have this is what I would have said. I don't have children, but I feel like i am barely getting by at times, and I would help 100% if I could. I put away money through out the year to "adopt a child" at Christmas and make it special for them. I can not imagine, a child waking up to nothing at christmas time. Even though this is so small compared to Famine. I have a moral responsibility to help, and I feel like I am with what I can. And your so right human being make mistakes.
DeleteIf there was a child drowning near me there is no doubt in my mind that I would jump in even if I had my beloved IPhone on me. This response is our natural instinct I think. I am a very compassionate person when it comes to the less fortunate be that human or animal. Seriously who doesn’t get chocked up watching the humane society commercials? But I think the important thing to keep in mind is how you can help locally. I think it is important to help those in other countries and strive to help all in need but I think in a way it is even more compassionate to go and actually provide a service to someone or something than just send five dollars to someone in a different country. The other issue I have with sending money is that I have to believe in the cause. For example I sponsor a child in Uganda to get an education and to have food and clothes. This cause is important to me because it is through my church and I have faith the money is going towards his need. I believe that it is in our moral duty to help those in need through good times and bad. I feel like if I do something now someone down the road might be willing to help me. Overall I agree with Singer if we can do something that we are morally obligated to, but I also think that you should believe in what you are doing and not think of it as a burden but a blessing that you can help those in need.
ReplyDeleteWell said, Erin, we should all give to what is important to us, but we should all give. Once this is a requirement it will no longer make us feel good and become a burden. That is why it should always be a choice to give and a choice to who to give to.
DeleteI believe that most people would help someone in need, as in the example given about the child drowning. I know that if I could jump in the water, no matter where I was going, what I was wearing to help someone I would. My moral responsibility is to help someone in need if I can, and I would for someone drowning, or in a car accident or hurt. This example I feel like, shouldn’t be compared to “famine in other countries”.
ReplyDeleteFamine is such a HUGE problem, I as one person can contribute to help, but by myself I am not going to make a difference. I think about things like this a lot, the starving children, and homeless families and I would love to help but I feel like I’m barely getting by. I do have some nice things, but I feel like I work really hard and deserve some of the nice things I have. I know that comment is going to get me some heat…but I do donate here on the front lines to homeless, and parentless children.
In a perfect world we wouldn’t have any starving people, or homeless people. But the world isn’t perfect, and I feel if we concerned ourselves with every bad thing that happened we would sink in a deep deprecation.
I know this sounds so selfish, but I truly hurt for all the Famine going on in countries. Because it isn’t in our face, we are able to put it behind us. I feel if it was brought to the front lines, we as a country would recognize it and help any way we could. This is a negative statement, but I also feel that if people knew that their money was going to help the famined counties we would help more. I question sometimes where our donated monies are going.
I think singer has shown us to have moral responsibility, and I believe most people help with what they can. Everyone has a different moral obligation weather it be animals, homeless people, starving children, abused children ect. One person can’t help everyone and everything. We as moral people have to pick something we feel strong about and help.
Danielle -
DeleteYou made a fabulous point by saying that, "we have to pick something we feel strong about and help." I ran across that a lot in talking about this with others this past week. Famine is something I feel strongly about, particularly when it strikes children, but many people I talked to had no emotional response to this at all. Now my husband has strong feelings about politics in various countries (which is usually linked to famine) and would be willing to donate finances to that issue, when I wouldn't be moved to do so. It seems we feel morally obligated when an issue appeals to our emotions.
I think most would agree that we have a moral obligation to assist those in need that are unable to help themselves. I believe the key word is prevention. When you get down to the basics, there are really only two options for the prevention of starvation: Promote population control, or make the earth bigger to sustain the human population. Of course, one of those is impossible.
ReplyDeleteSinger's argument is extreme. He would have everyone that is able only keep enough of the money they earn to provide for bare necessities and give the rest to the remainder of the population. It is not the rest of the world's duty to provide for the people who continue to reproduce knowing that there is no way they can provide for the children they create.
Saving a drowning child and preventing starvation are two very different issues. By saving a drowning child you are ensuring that the child no longer suffers in that moment. By agreeing that the best way to prevent suffering due to famine is to send money and food to feed everyone else on the planet, you are accepting responsibility for the actions of everyone else on the planet. I do not think we have a moral obligation to accept responsibility for others' actions. I do feel we have a moral obligation to limit the rate of human reproduction.
I also don't think we need to be taking care of feeding everyone. They have choices they can make themselves to be successful and do something with their lives they just don't do it.
DeleteBrianne -
DeleteI completely agree with you that we do not have a moral obligation to accept the responsibility for others' actions.
Dallas-
This is the exact point made by a few people I talked to who have been to areas of Africa hit by famine. They felt that most people just merely accepted their circumstances instead of trying to escape them. I am not certain I completely agree, because there are larger issues at play (political, religious, racism...), but I would like to think (while I sit on my comfy couch with a hot cup of tea) that I'd do all in my power to see that my children are fed - even if it meant walking to the ends of the earth to find food.
I think that the pond example is good. I'm going to say that most people would help the child. But if you think about it some people could care less and keep going. It's the world, and it isn't perfect.
ReplyDeleteAs for people in other countries personally I think it isn't Americas problem. We have homeless and families in poverty over here. If anything we should take care of them first. In my opinion the people of America have there own choice on whether or not they want to succeed in life. Really, they have an opportunity to do whatever they'd like. It's their own choice.
Singer's pond example is a good example to show how we would help a drowning child more then we would help famine problems. Which is true. If I were walking past a drowning child I would without thinking twice help the child. Now when people ask me to donate money to help third world countries I think twice. Money is not somthing I have a lot of, so I have to watch where I use it and i am selfish when it comes to me and my family. Where to if someone knocked on my door to volunteer my time or donate clothing or things I do have and can spare I would sign up or donate those items.
ReplyDeleteThese two subjects have similarites of people needing some sort of help and the difference is how we as society is suppose to help.
I think it's essentially inhumane to disagree with Singer. If you're walking by a pond, see a child drowning, it is clearly your duty to attempt to save the child. I believe that is a given. If someone disagrees with that base level of the argument, I'd seriously question who they are.
ReplyDeleteNow, having said that, the situation Singer is eluding to (famine) can create barriers to "doing your moral duty." There are obstacles in your way. Singer parallels the pond and famine but in reality it's much different. I would counter Singer's analogy by saying...what if your moral duty wasn't to rush in and save the kid but to pay a booth in front of the pond to cast a life raft into the water? What if the pond wasn't remotely close to your home and an infomercial was telling you that a kid was drowning? What if you'd love to pay money, but your own personal needs prevent you from doing so? (Not everyone is Mr. Philanthropist, Singer.) And for the topper in my opinion...what if you were helping a kid in your neighborhood on a daily basis who has cerebral-paulsy? Is it your moral duty to help all ills in the world? Where can you draw the line? A line has to be drawn with our mortal limitations.
Essentially what Singer is doing is condensing the world's problem down to famine. If you're not sending money or personally flying out there then you are a horrible person. Singer is obviously correct in implying that we have a moral obligation to help people. If at the end of the day, you realize you help only yourself, it should be hard to sleep. But if you make an effort for motives not of personal gain but to truly help someone in need, well then.
I do agree that Singer has shown us that we have a moral responsibility to prevent suffering from taking place when it is in our power to do so. The key phrase here is "when it is in our power to do so." Yes, a bystander has the power to save a drowning child, so the power should be used to save the child.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Singer that we are morally obligated to help children dying of famine in other countries. If it is in our power to help even just a little, then we should all give what we can to end famine. However, this is not the case in America. We invest in the latest technology, new cars, and fancy clothes. Additionally, America loves to eat. Big corporations such as Walmart or Cosco house thousands of pounds of food, yet there is little food in other countries. Fast food restaurants are on every corner in America, but Americans think little about starving people across the world. I think if big corporations, wealthy citizens, and even the average Joe contribute what they can, we can stop hunger.
I do not think it is right to walk away from such cases without doing nothing and still consider our behavior to be moral. However, that is the case in America. Very few people feel they have a moral obligation to help end famine. Most people only think of themselves and their families by splurging on whatever they can afford. Yes, if one is barely surviving then he is acting morally by trying to keep a roof over his head, or keeping his refrigerator stocked with groceries. The wealthier citizens, celebrities, and government officials do not worry about this, and yet few of them do anything to help end famine. In conclusion, if we all give what we can then the world could possibly be a better place and we could consider our behavior to be moral.
Singer has most definitely shown us a great example of valuing human life ahead of luxury items, but I do have a difficult time connecting the pond example with famine. Part of my difficulty lies in the distance aspect. While we most definitely have issues with starvation in the US, most famine we hear about is on another continent, which unfortunately brings about the "out of sight, out of mind" frame of mind. I know this in itself is not an argument for the validity of it being immoral to not help the starving children (and personally, famine in the US and other countries, is an issue I am passionate about), but it is a truth of human nature. I've had several conversations about this issue over the past week (Who knew ethics class would be such a fabulous conversation starter?!) and it has been interesting to hear the different responses. The most interesting aspect has been the reaction of those who have spent time in some of the famine ridden countries. Those particular people were the ones that felt people in other countries had absolutely NO moral obligation to help the starving people. After this I began to wonder if it is true that the suffering is prolonged by keeping them alive now. The issues typically go beyond agricultural or monetary difficulties and really center on government and religion. Of course, personally, I will still be sending money to US food banks and to various foreign orphanages, but I do have more understanding of why others do not. So many things are situational and sometimes helping causes more harm than good.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Singer was right when he said we had a moral obligation to help others if they were suffering. If a person is in need, the next person should step up to help. I also believe if helping someone puts you in a rough spot then you shouldn't help because that would only be putting someone back to suffering. I also feel people don't have to give money to help out in countries who are living in famine. There are other ways to help people other than giving money.
ReplyDeleteThe pond example shows we are morally responsible in helping others to live and that certain situations call for us to leave our comfort zone for a time.Singer, showed us moral responsibility however, I think we would all agree we cannot save everyone. I think it is important to do some things within reason but, to give everything up is extreme. While these people are in dire straights, I do not think it is right to put yourself in the same situation for them. Its one thing to place yourself in their shoes mentally while helping a little and another to give up everything for the purpose of trying to save them all. I feel if you can help a little then you should; just not to the point where you will jeopardize yourself,family,and your future. If you were to land in the situation they are in would they help you? Currently, society tends to be a selfish one that centers around what people can get out of others. Its become a take and take situation where less people give back in return. Our lives are just as valuable as theirs and I wonder if we gave up everything for them if they would help us in return? While the drowning may show us that we are morally obligated, I feel that in some situations we can only do so much.
ReplyDeleteI believe you should help others, even those who are less fortunate that you are; however you need to help yourself first to ensure that you can help others. Some luxury things could be skipped and giving back is always good but we have to be concerned with improving out economy so that we have the capability to help others. I believe it is one thing to help and another to do for them, helping those get on their feet but not giving them a crutch to stay poor and helpless. Help needs to improve and hold back the receiver.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the pond example does make us think that we have a moral responsibility to help someone in need when the opportunity is before us to prevent suffering. I also believe that we should definitely put helping someone else before our luxuries. I think it would change everyone belief about helping those dying of famine in other countries if we would be around them, even for a short while, to realize exactly what it's like to see those families dying of famine. I think more people would feel obligated to help out with the problem that other countries have. I think that most people here in the U.S. don't realize how much they can help, but most people can't afford to help with famine in other countries either. If someone is not aware of famine being a problem, we can't realize how important it is to try and help these kind of problems out.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that Singer has shown us to have a moral responsibility to prevent suffering from taking place when we have the power to do so. I think that it would be extremely immoral for a person to walk by a drowning child and not help for fear of wrecking their clothes. I do feel however that the extent to which an individual gives to someone in need should depend on how "well off" that person is. It does seem that in our world today that the people with very little are the ones that are more apt to help people in need when in reality it should be the ones like Taylor Swift who make $500,000 per concert that should give a little more.
ReplyDeleteI do think that for the most part people in America are greedy and selfish. I can say that although I do have a caring heart and will help out people in need there are times that I buy things I could definitely live without. Its hard to think of myself as being immoral by not taking that money and giving it back to those in need. I guess this is where the selfishness comes in when I think about how hard I work for what I have and that I in a sense DESERVE nice things.
I too think that if we could see how terrible the famine is in other countries that maybe that would change our way of thinking. For most people things are "out of sight, out of mind", and so we don't really think twice about the problems in other countries. For instance if I see a homeless person on the street while I am driving I am more than willing to give them money or go buy them a cheeseburger. That is sort of hard to do when people are thousands of miles away. I guess the book did make a good point when they said that even if we dont know the person and cant see them in real life doesnt mean that they still arent important.
Singer's example shows us that it is morally correct to prevent suffering if we have the power to. I don't think we need to look at helping dying children as an act that would strip us of all of our trinkets that we enjoy so much; in Singer's morally perfect world, everyone would help; meaning each person would not have to go to such great lengths help these starving children. This is not a morally perfect world however, and not every better-off person is willing to give aid. From an extremist point, we should do everything we can, give up everything we have to help those we can. I think it is very possible to do plenty of good without running your own life into the ground. If Bill Gates wants to donate 10 bazillion dollars, and keep his private jet, I'm certainly not going to tell him he has no morals. I don't think we are obligated to help everybody, and we wouldn't have to if everybody just helped somebody.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Singer does show us that it is morally correct to prevent suffering if we have the power to do so! I don't believe that we HAVE to do something that is moral if it is in our power to do so. For example, I will relate to the famine example. He mentioned giving up some of our own luxeries and put that money towards people who are living in famine. Now for me, I do not have the extra money to give to people living in famine or to give to the humane societies even though I know what is happening and I know what is going on. I believe that if you have the ability to do something morally without affecting you and your family in a negative way then that is the thing to do. For the child drowning, it does not hurt or affect you and your family by saving that child so the best thing to do is to save that child. Giving money to people living in famine could possibly put you and your family in a position that you don't want to be in. I do believe that you have to think of yourself and your family and then think of others. Even though it sounds bad, taking care of yourself and your body and state of mind is very important and will lead into you being able to help others in a great amount some day. If someone has some spare money or spare time and wants to help out or volunteer around the community I think that is great. I did that through high school a lot and try to volunteer as much as I can still today. But, if you have the power to help someone without harming yourself to badly or your family, then I think the moral thing to do is to do it! Usually people know what is right and what is wrong and what their limits are and what they can and cannot do so hopefully people continue to do the moral thing if they know they can do so!
ReplyDeleteI like how you put your response when you said it shouldn't hurt you or your family in any way. I don't think you should HAVE to do something if it's going to put you off in a significantly worse situation.
DeleteI do agree with singer in the way that we all should have some responsibility to help the less fortunate and suffering from taking place if it is our power to do so. However, some people and families do not have the money or resources to help out. Starving children from other countries is a huge deal and they could use lots of help, but if people cannot give anything to help them, there is also many people right here in our own country and even city that could use our help. If people do not have the financial resources to help others, we could also volunteer some of our time. So yes, I agree that we could all help others out in some way. The starving children from other countries however, are not the only ones who need help. It is more instinctive of us to help out those around us since we see the devistation in action and how some people actually have to live, but if we saw the children in famine I think we would feel more obligation and a drive to help them. I think that people should help out and act morally if they are able to and can afford to, or even give their time too.
ReplyDelete