Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow: World Hunger Essay

After reading Singer, Slote, and O’Neil’s arguments, I count on O’Neil’s approach to annihilate world hunger to be the strongest and most realistic ethical view. This will be the most effective way to end famine because if we make a law that applies to everyone, then it is essay to hold someone accountable, and if we treat everyone as an end in themselves then it is nearly impossible to let anyone suffer death or be treated insignificant to one another.

Peter Singer argues in his paper that we have a duty to reduce poverty and death simply because we can. He includes morality by explaining how not giving would be morally wrong of us to do, “I mean without causing anything bad to happen or doing something else that is wrong in itself, or failing to promote some moral good, comparable to the significance to the bad thing we can prevent” (Singer 413). Singer argues why it is our duty throughout the reading by informing us that suffering and death are bad and if we can prevent it by giving a small insignificant amount then we morally should. This reading “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” includes ideas based off utilitarian ethics for an example he uses wealthy people to be more obligated to give because they will not need the abundant amount of money to make them happier so giving to the poor would mean a greater amount of people would be led to a greater happiness. Another way utilitarianism is included is when Singer compares a neighbor to someone across the world, for Singer it is Bangladesh he claims that we have the same obligation to people in Bangladesh as to those next doors to us. Peter Singer also includes that no matter the amount of people with the same obligation it won’t change your role by any amount. We would be going forth as a utilitarian if we decided our morals as Singer ask of us in his paper, because we would be deciding right from wrong by what would be able to give us the greatest possible happiness.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place an order

Onora O’Neill’s reading “Kantian Ethics and World Hunger,” simplifies Kant’s moral theory by giving examples of Kantianism and arguing how it is more significant than Utilitarianism. O’Neill presets to the readers that it is easier to determine the action morally right while implying the categorical imperative than it would be using Utilitarianism because it is a rule that applies to everyone no strings attached. Kantian ethics and Utilitarianism differ in how we determine whether an act we proceed is right or wrong. “Kantians argue or work for must always be oriented to development plans that create enough economic self-sufficiency and social security for independence in action to be feasible and sustainable,” by including this O’Neill is providing that Kantians moral acts will transform our economy to become more sustainable for life (O’Neill 430.) Kant ethics is a moral that the well lived life is a life of duty and that any other life wouldn’t be worth living, while talking about Kantian view, she includes “we must not only be alive, but have a life to lead” (O’Neill 430), and that human life is “valuable because humans have considerable capacities for autonomous actions” (O’Neill 429). By the end of this passage it is said that “Kantians do not, of course, advocate justice alone, but also insist that beneficence is important and should be manifested in support and concern for particular others and for their projects” (O’Neill 432). Translating that it’s not just justice that matters, but kindness and more when deciding a moral imperative. The End in Itself is a formulation to never see someone as a mere mean which is why Kant’s control their own lives, whereas individual Utilitarian’s get over ruled so if sacrificing one’s life will lead to happiness for the greater no mater one’s own happiness, he or she will not have a say.

Michael Slote writer of “Famine, Affluence, and Empathy,” asserts that seeing verses perceiving makes a difference in our duties, which creates a second nature arising our awareness, therefore allowing us to feel more empathy for those near to us. Slote appends in his paper that it’s harder because, “turning away from someone we see seems worse than ignoring someone whom one knows about only by description” (Slote 150). Virtue ethics are included as Slote talks about our obligations and how we fail to complete them, because of the time and money we may possibly have to sacrifice to help those distance rather than near to us. We make decisions based on what’s easier and more convenient for us, especially if empathy is not found. In virtue ethics it is believed that there are character traits that we nurture and built up, allowing us to feel empathy, become honest and more which allows us to make decisions based on reason. In “Famine, Affluence, and Empathy,” Slote makes several attempts to explain how the difference in seeing verses perceiving changes our empathetic acts, the one that really stuck with me is that we humans find it easier to empathize with born a human rather than a fetus and for most people that is true.

If we are to use the categorical imperative as a society providing each other with moral law that applies to everyone with no conditions attached, then could we end world poverty? This could be the most effective way to end famine because if we apply the law to everyone, then it is essay to hold someone accountable, and if we treat everyone as an end in themselves, then it is nearly impossible to let anyone suffer death or be treated insignificant to one another. In the world today all across the world, thousands of people suffer from world hunger each day this has become a problem due to the lack of our involvement and obligations to each other. As I read “Kantian Ethics and World Hunger,” by Onora O’Neil I find myself strongly agreeing with O’Neil’s arguments and believing they would have the best possible outcome. “Kantians argue or work for must always be oriented to development plans that create enough economic self-sufficiency and social security for independence in action to be feasible and sustainable,” by including this O’Neil is telling us that if we all become Kantians then we will be lead to an economy where we will have plenty of resources for all human life (O’Neill 430.) This also means that we will be working together towards our moral law allowing us to accomplish more. “Kantians do not, of course, advocate justice alone, but also insist that beneficence is important and should be manifested in support and concern for particular others and for their projects” (O’Neill 432). This illustrates that Onora O’Neil believes that a deontologist will put charity, mercy, and kindness just as they will justice when deciding a moral obligation. So, if they put charity as they do justice then it would be as morally right to give as it is any other duty this would allow more people to have the duty to give, giving would lead us to a poverty free society. O’Neil goes to include “we must not only be alive, but have a life to lead,” she infers that a well lived life is a life of duty and if we were to choose any other life it wouldn’t be worth living (O’Neil 430.) Having a life to lead, to lead is to follow a path of holiness and to live is to make the most of it, so living as she asks would lead us to a holy life lived to fullest. These are all great points made by O’Neil but a conflict that I think will arise is that we need a full commitment from everyone to eliminate famine, and that our obligations are made by rational people, yet not everyone is rational. Would our outcome change even if we have moral laws that apply to everyone, because there are still choices to be determined by our own independent reasons? We are humans and we make mistakes so even if we are all rational people it doesn’t mean that every choice we make will be made out of good will. However, deontology is still the best solution there is one problem and that is “no cheating, no stealing, and no lying,” so if you needed to steal a boat to save someone from drowning it would be against our code of ethics. If you need to lie to save the lives of hundreds its still against the moral code. This will mean that if we all become deontologist and incidents like these occur where we need something in the spur of the moment or we have to lie to save someone from death it will still be considered morally incorrect according to the Kantian approach. Another objection, but one that applies to all ethical views is that we will have people who disagree with the chosen ethics in this case with Kantian and branch off to become a positivism or for a more drastic conversion become a utilitarianist. This universe is made up of rebellious people and just because they are given a new ethical view doesn’t mean they will do what’s right especially if they didn’t before. Those people will cause huge hurdles in annihilating world hunger simply because we would never fully be on the same page. Temptation is one of the biggest obstacles all three passages will face and that’s because it changes our reason, we know is right to give to the poor but we also know it’s fun to go to six flags. The obvious moral response would be to give but very seldom will we give up something enjoyable to someone we barely know. Without being said that also applies to both consequentialist and virtue ethics, yet I still believe that O’Neil’s view is that most stable and reasonable way to end poverty.

Singer’s idea about the wealthy having a greater obligation to give more money and assistance to help the poor is not an original idea. Yes, it is a very reasonable solution to the problem, but it is not the best approach to end famine. Within his readings he includes several examples of why world hunger is bad and how we should use affluent people to eliminate poverty. He first includes to tell us that the lack of food, shelter and medicine are all bad and we all understand that, yet we continue to ignore them. Singer thinks if we were all utilitarian’s and had a duty to end world hunger, we would, but can we really all become utilitarian’s and believe that ending world hunger would lead us all to a greater happiness. Yet I know we are all surrounded by temptations each and every day so getting everyone to agree that helping end poverty will lead to the greatest happiness will be nearly impossible. Another argument Singer feels the need to cover is that if it is in our power to prevent these things why shouldn’t we. I believe that is the most accurate line anyone could embrace while trying to end world hunger, but without everyone’s help or at least without the right people the help of a single person won’t prevent or stop much when talking about famine. Lastly Singer includes that we can prevent world hunger without sacrificing anything of moral importance. Maybe in Singer’s time of day this would be possible, but today it would take a lot more than just charity. Singers examination to fix poverty would require us to give a huge amount to others, and by doing do it would only lead to a short-term solution, delaying the original problems. For example, take our class and give them the mission to end poverty. We would probably all start by donating what we could, but eventually we ourselves will need money to feed our families. We can only do some much with the little we have. In order to accomplish all that Singer wants we would all need to donate something not just the wealthy, but each and every person whether it is to be money or time. The only real solution Singer would have to conclude with would be population control and that quite frankly would harm the economy. I cannot stress this enough, but to completely end world hunger and keep it extinct we would all need to help in some way. Just because we helped today doesn’t mean they won’t be hungry tomorrow, therefor we need to end poverty for good not just put it off by giving a little money it will only delay it for so long before we give up. Now Slote’s argument, is that seeing verses perceiving makes a difference in our duties, which creates a second nature arising our awareness, therefore allowing us to feel more empathy for those near to us. For Slote includes powerful arguments I can agree partially with each argument because I find myself strongly disagreeing with his ethical approach. A virtue ethics are developed, it’s a second nature meaning its taught, if we have someone teaching the young what they believe is right, but is actually morally wrong those kids will grow up believing what they were taught. So, years or even days later the wrong virtue also known as a vice could be spread, meaning Slote’s virtue ethics is unstable. A virtue is a habit concerned with choosing that consist in a mean related to us when determined by reason of a prudent person. For that to work we need to become prudent people and to do so it takes practice we must be coherent, and complex established cooperative humans with internal goods that lead us to high standards that can change over time. Having a virtue ethics approach takes lots of work and to have one where everyone would be on the same page would take lots of rules and duties. Both Singer and Slote will have objections to O’Neil’s theory, for example Singer will disagree with the categorical imperative because it doesn’t care about happiness and doesn’t change based on an individual’s situation. This would raise frustration to Singer because he believes everything can be accomplished by satisfying the majority, but really utilitarian views would bring upon the most irrational decisions because we would be worrying about reaching the greatest happiness. As for Slote his main argument to my solution would most defiantly be that it doesn’t take practice to have obligations and to understand, however my obligations would just simply be universal law. Unlike Slote, O’Neil’s reasons are also based off the end in itself, where we never treat anyone including our self as a mean, this forces our actions to always be one or more maxims.

If we are to use the categorical imperative as a society providing each other with moral law that applies to everyone with no conditions attached, then could we end world poverty? In this paper I have included a summary of Singer’s, O’Neil’s, and Slote’s arguments by giving their general arguments and identifying their conclusions. I then incorporated that I prefer deontological ethics and that I agree with O’Neil’s argument. It is also included what I believe will fail to work in her argument. Finally, I discuss how I trust O’Neil’s approach will have a greater effect in ending world hunger over both Singer and Slote’s approaches, and supporting my choice with explaining how they will fail.