Kamalpreet Singh
Dr. Michael Fleming
Phil-100
1 March 2018
Peter Singer and Jan Narveson’s perspective towards starving people
This essay focusses on differences in the thoughts of Singer and Narveson about morality of our behavior towards hungry people. The views are based on the fact that whether we should contribute for improve the sufferings of poor

Singer opens Family, Affluence, and Morality by presenting that in numerous spots all through the world, countless individuals experience the ill effects of starvation. He expresses that these conditions are so well-known, "That neither people nor governments can claim to be uninformed of what is going on there" (Singer, p. 230). Following this, Singer contends we have an ethical commitment …show more content…
In the event that we are in charge of making the tragic circumstance in which another person gets himself ruined, at that point we do owe him help and support. Narveson contends that any assistance we provide for the starving is totally discretionally. We may give on the off charge that we like, however such help isn’t ethically required. For Narveson, our ethical obligations are provided altogether by the requests of justice and charity involves regarding everybody’s rights. He says that the poor wear not have the privilege to be nourished the necessities of others don’t consequently give the privilege to your help for him we are ethically allowed to do anything we like so long as we don’t damage the opportunity for others. We have a privilege to strengthen poor in the event that we wish, and they have a negative effect to be sustained. Be that as it may, we ought not strongly force an obligation on others to help them. In the event that the way that others are starving isn't our fault then we don't have to accommodate them as obligation of fairness. To think generally is to assume that we are, in effect, slaves to the severely off. Thus we can in great heart spend our cash on luxuries rather than on poor people. All things being equal, encouraging the eager and dealing with the hopeless …show more content…
Both Singer’s and Narveson’s view differ in this situation.
Singer will support the perspective that we should not spend on luxuries rather we should support the child for his better future. It would be considered morally correct. Serving for charity is a good deed to be done But Narveson disagrees that it is not our legal or prior duty for contributing to assist the child to grow. We are not the victim for their condition. If we are not willing to contribute, then we should not.
I strongly support Narveson’s views that it is not our strict duty to feed someone .It will make us more slaves than well-off. It will make us an instrument in increasing the overall welfare. It is not our moral duty to feed those or to protect those who are in need but if someone do so, it would be considered moral to save someone. If we do not help the needy ones, then there is nothing immoral in it as we are not responsible for their hunger. We can willingly contribute without any pressure. I reject Singer’s argument as we cannot force someone to help