Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics

Everyone should have the right to live a stable life with all the necessary essentials, which include food, shelter, and medical care. Unfortunately, not every individual in our world has access to either one or all of these essential life elements. In Peter Singer’s essay, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, Singer emphasizes the importance of giving back to those who are less fortunate. Singer in particular claims that those who are affluent individuals should feel morally obligated to donate to humanitarian causes.

Aristotle was born in 384 B.C. Stagira, a town that was north of Athens, and was one of the greatest thinkers who ever lived. When he got older he decided to enroll in Plato’s Academy, where for two decades he did his research and taught others. His work contributed to logic, mathematics, physics, ethics, and many more. He was in fact Plato’s student whom both studied under Socrates. He was told by Philip of Macedonia to tutor his thirteen year old son who later on became one of the greatest military minds in history, Alexander the Great. Even today all of his work is the starting point of any discussion that involves logic and ethics.

Peter Singer famine relief argument, demonstrates big moral questions to our old-fashioned notions of giving towards charity. Human beings have a moral obligation to donate more resources to those who are in need. (Singer, p 235).

Poverty is prevalent throughout the world around us. We watch television and see famous people begging us to sponsor a child for only fifty cents a day. We see images of starving children in faraway countries, and our hearts go out to them. But we really do not know the implications of poverty, why it prevails, or even what we can do to help fight this massive problem in our world. In Peter Singer’s article “Famine, Affluence, and Mortality,” he argues that it is a moral duty for affluent nations to help starving people in distant countries.

“That persons with very low incomes may merit our sympathy is accepted, but sympathy leads to charity, rather than to the involuntary exploitation of the better off” (Narveson, 2004). Singer also says that people with a maintainable amount of wealth should give more than the X amount asked for, being that the predicament that some are not able to give or they can give less than the amount asked for. “Another, more serious reason for not giving to famine relief funds is that until there is effective population control, relieving famine merely postpone starvation” (Singer, 1972).

As a human, I felt obligated to be supportive and help those who need it, if it doesn’t take much to help that person or their benefits aren’t detrimental to me. But after reading On the Supposed Obligation to Relieve Famine, I realized that I should re-evaluate the situation and determine if the individual deserves the assistance. Although I will not settle completely on one side or the other, I have reconsidered my viewpoints, in terms of should I be compelled to help if the person is a good candidate for the assistance. Singer has exposed me to the idea of taking more action in helping those in need, while Kekes has directly convinced me to analyze the situation, the background, the reason for help, and determine if my efforts will be

Another problem according to peter singer in “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” is that, “the question of how much we ought to give is a matter to be decided in the real world.” Nobody should feel obligated to donate or help those in need. However, helping and teaching others how to escape poverty might be considered a good

What would you do if you had to constantly think about how you were going to eat or take a shower or find clean water to drink? This is the daily struggle those people in underdeveloped countries face. So, what can we do about this? Peter Singer offered an argument for the moral obligations we have to others. He argued that there is nothing that is preventing us from performing our duty to individuals that are dying from malnutrition and disease. According to Singer, each of us can all afford to save a starving child by budgeting a little. Simply spending the appropriate amount of money it takes to meet our basic needs and donating the rest can make a tremendous impact on the life of each starving child in another country. Singer suggests that we can opt for a less expensive lifestyle that is unnecessary and then the rest of the money can be donated. Many people try to argue that they cannot afford to donate, but in reality, we all have more than we actually need and we are all capable of donating a portion of our earnings. Any excuse or objection someone tries to come up with can be proven to be untrue by applying Singer’s

In November 1971, Peter Singer composed his essay “Famine, Affluence and Morality” in regards to famine in East Bengal (now East Pakistan). He stated that people were suffering and dying due to lack of food resources, shelter, clothing, and medical assistance. This and many other factors such as civil war, and natural disaster have turned approximately nine million people into insolvent refugees (Singer, 229). Though there seemed to be some institutions and private or public organizations that were capable of helping the refugees, there were no sufficient funds. Peter Singer argues that individuals from wealthy countries like the Western World are morally ought to help. Unfortunately, people have not made any significant response to such situation.

I agree with Peter Singer’s argument that most people in affluent societies are morally required to give more of their money and resources to combating global poverty and famine than they currently do. This will be supported by the utilitarian argument, that net utility should always be maximised, by exploring his belief that this should be obligatory rather than supererogatory as well as investigating the influence of basic physical and psychological needs. I will also argue against the “Demandingness Objection”, a strong objection to Singer’s views.

The subject of Dr. Simson’s talk was about our moral obligation to help others. She discussed some factors to consider when determining the neediness of people. Whether resources actually reach disadvantaged people, the difficult of donating, and the interferences with other obligations are all factors that can help us determine the level of our moral obligation towards underprivileged people. Another interesting point Dr. Simson made was the difference between an act of generosity versus our moral obligation.

To find out what the function of a human being is, Aristotle looks at what is distinctive about humans. He discovers that the good of the human is to act in accord with reason well, which can translate into acting in accord with virtue. One cannot have happiness without virtue, just as it is impossible to be virtuous with the absence of rational thinking. Because man is a rational creature, rather than plants which are vegetative, happiness for man must include the excellent functioning of the rational faculties.

Aristotle’s thoughts on ethics conclude that all humans must have a purpose in life in order to be happy. I believe that some of the basics of his ideas still hold true today. This essay points out some of those ideas.

Around the world, there are many developed countries than others. The occupants of these countries, such as America, have had more opportunities to prosper than countries like Haiti. Although there are several successful organizations that raise money for impoverished countries, the demand for medical supplies and food has become greater. Peter Springer, a professor of bioethics, urges prosperous people to donate money that is normally spent on luxurious items. This seems like a simple solution until you weigh out the pros and cons. Donating money to organizations has both the benefit of moral accomplishment and the risk of hurting our own economy; furthermore, Singer’s argument proves to be unconvincing as one can see the potential downfall of a strong nation.

Peter Singer said; “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it” (Famine, Affluence, and Morality). As human beings, we have a moral compulsion to help other people, despite the verity that they may be strangers, especially when whatever type of aid we may render can in no approach have a more significant consequence on our own life.