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: Majas Fenrilkree
Country: Central African Republic
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Love
Published (Last): 6 June 2008
Pages: 457
PDF File Size: 17.95 Mb
ePub File Size: 8.4 Mb
ISBN: 433-8-27439-603-2
Downloads: 28625
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Dousida

Evidence shows ian population can be controlled by government policy. Sign up using Email and Password. If Narveson gets his way, then the utilitarian would not be allowed to impose paternalism and welfarism on others, and so would not allowed to live according to utilitarian values.

Inthe UN recommended that developed countries devote at least 0.

That is obviously not a way to respect people and their values. In Ethical Issues-Perspectives for Canadians, 2nd ed.

However, if we look at the history, we can find that most developing nations were colonies of us, developed countries. So giving actually fulfills our natural desires and creates utility. A corollary of this doctrine is that there is no moral difference between killing and letting die.

Utilitarianism states that people are morally right to promote happiness or maximize utilities Soifer XIII. The 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. 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.

Nowhere in that article does Singer say that people should be forced to give. He also holds that while we do have a duty of charity, it is not so strong as to require us to give until it hurts. If it reached a point where further sacrifices would do more harm than good, then Singer, as a utilitarian, should agree that further sacrifices would not be morally required in fact, they would be morally prohibited!


In other words, it is at least sometimes morally permissiblre to force someone to act justly, but it is never morally permissible to force someone to be charitable.

Edited by Rand Dyck. Lastly, we should feed the hungry due to utilitarianism theory. Historically, some utilitarians, such as John Stuart Mill, have advocated military intervention for humanitarian purposes, but Singer gives us no reason to believe that he would support such a policy.

The cost of giving is far below the benefits. 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. When we freding the starving, the starving gets benefits. So we definitely have the capability. The one-time cash infusion from the U. This shows that we can start with the same principle and come to radically different conclusions about which policies to adopt.

Jan Narveson – “Feeding the Hungry”

Lastly, we actually reap benefits by feeding the starving. Feeding the hungry is saving lives, so it makes us like heroes. According to his distinction, the demands of justice our enforceable, but charity is not. In our culture, we believe fefding egalitarianism. The conclusion does not follow unless The Greatest Happiness Principle or a similar consequentialist doctrine is added as a premise; Narveson rejects consequentialism.

Rather, his view is that there is no morally neutral standpoint from which all people matter equally. Singer could begin uungry to the above narvseon by observing that most people will not do as he urges them to. And some people value certain other people but not others, etc. In regards to your second question, if we look at what you provide, he is again denying that we have a positive duty.

For natural disasters, we still cannot completely be exempted from it. If it did come to pass that people were meeting their moral obligations and fdeding sacrifices in great numbers, then economic harm to wealthy nations might occur. Therefore, the Libertarian Principle is not the best way to respect others and their values.


At the same time, we are benefited by giving, both in the short run and long run. That’s what we need in Notice that the above argument is logically compatible with utilitarianism.

By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Cookie Policy narveeson, Privacy Policyand our Terms of Service. The most plausible answer, I think, is the point of view that allows different people to live their various lives, by forbidding interference with the lives of others.

Or, as Narveson puts it: Suppose you taught a man to cook a kind of food which actually is toxic.

Jan Narveson: Feeding the Hungry

The collapse of the U. Note that the conclusion of the argument is a conditional: Sign up using Facebook. Yale University Press, Singer, Peter. People are deliberately starved by corrupt governments who deny aid or enforce inefficient farming policies, or as a result of war civil or otherwise. If we did exactly as Singer urges, then the world would be much worse off. How to feed a hungry w 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. 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. As jxn result, hungryy all private sector jobs would be lost. Uungry, since Canada always need immigrants to fill up shrinking population, the others may provide human resource in the future.

A positive duty is an obligation to do something.