Question

Reconstruct Singer’s argument in support of the claim that affluent nations have a moral obligation to provide financial assistance to extremely poor nations. What is John Arthur’s objection to Singer’s argument. Be sure to identify which premise, if any, in Singer’s argument he rejects. What is Garrett Hardin’s objection to Singer? Be sure to state and explain which premise in Singer’s argument Hardin would object to. Finally, state (and explain) who makes the better of the two objections.

Answer 1

Singer was of the view that it is our moral obligation to give our money to the less fortunate nations and that we are morally rephrensible if we fail to do so.He justifies his theory by using a drowning child analogy where he writes that most people will save a draining child and would not care about their expensive clothing getting ruined. In a nutshell, we value human life more than material ownshership and possession and it is only ethically reasonable if we spend a portion of our possession on the people who are less fortunate or donate it to charity.

John Arthur critiqued Singer's work and said that although being humane in important but we are not obliged to spend our money on others.As we have earned the money through hard work and labour, hence we are entitled to do what we desire; spend on others or keep with yourself. It is okay to give and it is okay to not give, as well. Arthur also argued that since monetary gain is our motivation to work, if we give away our money just enough to survive above the basic needs, humans would be less inclined and less motivated to work hard and succeed.

Garrett was another theorist who opposed Singer's view. He called this criticism Lifeboat Ethics.If we could imagine West as a big boat with all the survival amenities available for each, and the West sharing its commodities with the less fortunate small boats, the West would end up in scarce and devoid its own members of privileges and basic amenities. He denounced Singer's theory on this ground.

Finally, I believe Arthur makes the better argument against Singer as he talks about the intrinsic motivation of humans to work and survive. He , in a very realistic way view money as a source of motivation to work and become a productive member of the society. If the money that we earn through sweat and blood is given away to charity , with surviving on a little above average, our motivation to work would collapse. It's good to give but its okay to not give, as well.