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: Akitaxe Meztilkree
Country: Netherlands
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Technology
Published (Last): 16 July 2008
Pages: 424
PDF File Size: 9.40 Mb
ePub File Size: 14.16 Mb
ISBN: 356-6-53145-667-5
Downloads: 33551
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Kazrakasa

How would Singer respond to the argument? Can We Feed the World His argument is arbitrary. If Narveson is nareson, perhaps this only shows that we need to be using our resources to change the political situation in other countries instead narvespn in addition to–providing them with food.

People fundamentally disagree on matters of value, so it is impossible for everyone to have their way. If the policy of forcing people to give maximizes utility, then it is ipso facto the right policy. So, in relatively short order, the poor countries of the world would be poor once again. Yale University Press, Singer, Peter.

We must obey the law and we should follow the moral rule. Sign up or log in Sign up using Google. 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. Secondly, even if some of us a. Narveson believes that starvation come from politics and natural disasters, for example, bad government and floods Other than colonial heritage, we have created socialism and communism.

In our culture, we believe in egalitarianism. Narveson makes a distinction between principles and policies. What Narveson narveeson argue is that it would be wrong for others to force us to give, say, by taxing us and giving our money to charity.


Therefore, the Libertarian Principle is not the best way to respect others and their values.

Jan Narveson Feeding the Hungry

According to the argument above, we have no duty of justice to feed the hungry. A Libertarian would probably be inclined to han premise 3. Uniting them is not as simple as the welfarist or utilitarian may think. For example, China has been using one-child policy successfully to manage overall population, which partly attributes to decrease absolute poverty dramatically.

In regards to your second question, if we look at what you provide, he is again denying that we have a positive duty. In One World-the Ethics of Globalization, 2nd ed. Edited by John M. But for a utilitarian, such as Singer, there is no reason in principle why it would be wrong to force people to give. Note that the thw of the argument is a conditional: 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.

The collapse of the U. We would need to know the long-term effects of feeding the hungry versus the long-term effects of continuing to buy luxuries. For Narveson, though, there is a fundamental moral difference between helping others by sending them food and helping others by changing their government, since changing governments involves interfering in the lives of others, and might require the use of force. This is because in both cases, he is saying we are not required to do something.

Just about everyone would be unemployed and penniless. People can live as they see fit and pursue their values only if they are alive.

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. We may help create the disasters. Nowhere in that article does Singer say that people should be forced to give.


Jan Narveson Feeding the Hungry

So we cannot conclude that we are not able to feed the hungry in the future. The above reply to the argument is still not entirely successful. 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.

Stay hungry Stay fooli Email Required, but never shown. Chen 5 Works Cited Myrden, Judy. In other words, we maybe somehow lead them to establish bad governments. How should Narveson reply to this objection? Therefore, since we are free, we cannot be forced to help the others whose starvation was not the result of our previous activities It will improve the relationship between the others and us.

Singer might also suggest that our aid to the needy should include fundamental reforms in impoverished countries that would improve their long-term prospects. There are three reasons.

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. 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.

Jan Narveson: Feeding the Hungry

Neither refers to what we are prohibited from doing. So the disasters may not be totally natural.

If we did exactly as Singer urges, then the world would be much worse off. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to force others to act charitably.