Published by on January 12, 2021
Categories: Literature

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.

Author: Zurr Faekree
Country: Venezuela
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Love
Published (Last): 13 October 2006
Pages: 483
PDF File Size: 2.34 Mb
ePub File Size: 10.81 Mb
ISBN: 876-2-49506-275-3
Downloads: 56962
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Voodoogami

Narveson partly agree with him The one-time cash infusion from the U. Edited by Eldon Soifer. Therefore, we are in fact forced to feed them by moral power. Eventually, we will not be able to save the starving people because there are too many of them. There are three reasons. Philosophy Stack Exchange works best with JavaScript enabled. Also, giving makes life more meaningful. Therefore, since we are free, we cannot be forced to help the others whose starvation was not the result of our previous activities At the same time, we are benefited by giving, both in the short run and long run.

According to the argument above, we have no duty of justice to feed the hungry. So, in relatively short order, the poor countries of the world would be poor once again. If Narveson is right, perhaps this only shows that we need to be using our resources to change the political situation in other countries instead of–or in addition to–providing them with food.

As he sees it, people differ fundamentally regarding what they value, and there is no justification for assuming any one point of view is the correct one e. The utilitarian can argue that while people disagree about how to pursue happiness, it is still true that happiness is the only intrinsic good.


Perhaps it is better for maximizing utility in the long run to use our resources to strengthen our society here at home, rather than feeding starving mouths overseas.

Conversely, a positive duty would be a duty to save people or intervene if we see a child molester or to serve in the army. If the policy of forcing people to give maximizes utility, then it is ipso facto the right policy.

While giving food to the hungry, we are feeling happy due to our human nature.

Jan Narveson: Feeding the Hungry

Rousseau believes that human beings are naturally capable of mutual love and cooperation Sigurdson Utilitarianism states that people are morally right to promote happiness or maximize utilities Soifer XIII.

This claim seems to be supported by two general considerations: In Moral Matters, 2nd ed. Does this imply he does not believe we have a positive duty? Trade will be promoted, and we will gain from trade.

Jan Narveson: Feeding the Hungry

If I act to bring something about, then I am the cause of an intended outcome, whereas if I merely allow it to happen, then I am not the cause of an intended outcome. Stay hungry Stay fooli The cost of giving is far below the benefits. Hardin argues that feeding the hungry today would create more starving people tomorrow which we are not capable to feed. Secondly, if some people of us insist that the others are feedng is not their fault at all, they still have the duty of justice to provide food to the hungry.

A negative duty is an obligation to refrain hungy doing something link.

In Ethical Issues-Perspectives for Canadians, 2nd ed. Home Questions Tags Users Unanswered. Thw best way to respect others and their values is to let each person live as that person sees fit, insofar as that does not prevent others from doing the same.

Jan Narveson Feeding the Hungry

What should we do in fesding Should not you be somewhat responsible for his death? Some people value narvseon, others virtue, others art, others knowledge, and so on.


People can live as they see fit and pursue their values only if they are alive. It is paradoxical to claim that we are obligated to maximize utility, but at the same time we are all obligated to do something that would greatly diminish utility were we all to do it. If we did exactly as Singer urges, then the world would be much worse off. Enforced feeding of the starving, however, does cross the line, invading the farmer or the merchant, forcing him to part with some of his hard-earned produce and give it without compensation to others.

Principles are general theoretical claims e. Ffeding is the right time because first of all they need food to survive, and we actually are able to supply. However, Libertarianism is the best compromise available. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc, Post as a guest Name.

Lastly, we actually reap benefits by feeding the starving. We emit much more greenhouse gases per capita than developing feedin Singer Suppose you taught a man to cook a kind of food which actually is toxic.

This shows that we can start with the same principle and come to radically different conclusions about which policies to adopt. Evidence shows that population can be controlled by government policy. Stay Hungry Stay Fooli Post Your Answer Discard By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of serviceprivacy policy and cookie policyand that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.