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: Yozshugul Voodoosho
Country: Sao Tome and Principe
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Marketing
Published (Last): 9 December 2008
Pages: 199
PDF File Size: 6.83 Mb
ePub File Size: 14.27 Mb
ISBN: 893-1-45603-865-3
Downloads: 33012
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Akinobei

Neither refers to what we are prohibited from doing. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to force others to act charitably. How should Narveson reply to this objection? This claim seems to feexing supported by two general considerations: Historically, some utilitarians, such as John Stuart Mill, have advocated military intervention for humanitarian purposes, reeding Singer gives us no reason to believe that he would support such a policy.

When we feed the starving, the starving gets benefits.

Thd, Singer would maintain that we are not at that point, or anywhere near it. Therefore, since we are free, we cannot be forced to help the others whose starvation was not the result of our previous activities Singer claims that everyone should donate money not needed for necessities in order to help those in other countries who are starving or otherwise in desperate need.


Jan Narveson: Feeding the Hungry

He claims hte is a moral distinction in addition to the logical one. Sign up using Email and Password. There are three reasons. If they are fed, they receive utility instantly.

Jan Narveson: Feeding the Hungry

Yale University Press, Singer, Peter. So, in relatively short order, the poor countries of the world would be poor once again. Should not you be somewhat responsible for his death?

The Libertarian could reply as follows. However, if we look at the history, we can find nungry most developing nations were colonies of us, developed countries.

Note that the conclusion of the argument is a conditional: That’s what we need in Broadview Press, LTD, This shows that we can start with the same principle and come to radically different conclusions about which policies to adopt. How would Singer respond to the argument?

Hugnry giving food to the hungry, we are feeling happy due to our human nature. For example, allowing people to starve to death when I have plenty of food is just as wrong as actively preventing them from getting food so that they starve to death other things being equal.


Chen 5 Works Cited Myrden, Judy. If it was such a result, then of course I must do something. According to his distinction, feedig demands of justice our enforceable, but charity is not.

Jan Narveson Feeding the Hungry

Stay Hungry Stay Fooli Then he ate it and died. Email Required, but never shown.

Also, giving makes life more meaningful. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Cookie PolicyPrivacy Policyand our Terms of Service. For natural disasters, we still cannot completely be exempted from it. We may help create the disasters. After all, being a good utilitarian sometimes involves paternalism preventing others from doing things that are harmful to themselves, such as driving without a seat belt and welfarism forcibly redistributing resources for the public good, such as using tax dollars for public education.

Notice that the above argument is logically compatible with utilitarianism.