Questions and Answers on Ethics, Charity, Animal Rights

Does Arthur believe residents of wealthy countries ought to be charitable?

Arthur argues that residents of wealthy countries have a right to do whatever they please with their money because there is no contract between the needy and the wealthy. The wealthy individuals invoke their rights for not giving charity to the poor. It is not their responsibility to help the poor, but it is only through their choice.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The most interesting thing in Arthur's argument is that he does not maintain that the wealthy should ignore the needs of the poor, instead they have a right of not giving, and they are not answerable to anyone if they give or not give money for charity and why do wealthy people give to charity the same as how much do the wealthy donate to charity. Arthur also believes that if people were to live based on the moral standards put forward by Singer, the greater moral evil rule, then the rich should not only provide the poor with monetary charity, but also donate parts of their body to help one from dying. For example, if a person is able to survive without a kidney, then he should donate the kidney to save the life of a dying person. Arthur disagrees with this idea because it violates the rights of a person to property.

Arthur only believes that there are a number of individuals who suffer from hunger each single day because they are lazy and they do not want to work and helping them is not morally right. However, he maintains that if it leads to death it is a bad thing. Helping the residents of poor countries and how charitable are the wealthy therefore should be the choice and not our moral duty or obligation.

How might children of a poor country respond to Arthur? How might he reply to them?

The children of the poor may not agree with Arthur's view on charity because they would want the rich to give charity to feed them. If you are living a comfortable life while these children are dying or hungry, and you fail to make any significant way of assisting them, then your behavior is ethically indefensible. People ought to give because it is a moral duty and something that is expected of them.

Arthur should realize that giving charity is neither generous nor charity. Not helping the poor is morally wrong if you have the power and capability to help, what keeps you from helping are the moral values that you have. The rich should put their money where their mouth is and give charity to the poor.

Arthur may respond by saying that wealthy people being charitable is also up to them, as no one can force you to give because it is not a positive right issue or a contract between the people in need and the wealthy individuals. The wealthy should not ignore the needs of the poor, instead they have a right to give but, they are not answerable to anyone and it is not their moral obligation to help the poor, especially in developing countries like Africa.

Are you acting immorally by buying a luxury car while others are starving?

Singer's answer and why?

According to Singer, the sacrifice and act of buying a luxury car compared to the moral duty and value to save lives and prevent bad things from happening is not of equal importance. Instead of buying a luxurious car, we can sacrifice it for an affordable car and give the rest to the poor. This calls for a moral responsibility to do that.

It’s not true that rich people have a moral obligation, but it will be morally wrong for the rich not to care for the poor with their financial assistance. Charity comes with the moral duty of not spending much on luxuries, instead preventing bad things like hunger and death from happening through charity and donation. The money that could have been used in buying a luxury car should be sent to the poor who need it for their basic needs like food, clothing and shelter.

As long as the money that could have been used on useless luxury causes increased suffering (loneliness and solitude) level, it should be donated to the needy. The giver will be happy because through giving, their suffering and the recipient suffering decreases. Charity comes with the good feeling that you were able to help someone out of your own faith.

Arthur's answer and why?

According to Arthur, a person does not act immorally by buying a luxury car because people have the right to use their money as they please. To Arthur, this is not morally wrong and he considers it as a positive rights issue.

Arthur however accepts that we should give to the poor through our own choice by maintaining that the poor have no right to invoke us to sacrifice our needs and instead fulfill their needs because we have the moral obligation or the right for not giving.

Giving charity is not a moral obligation of the rich, as it is entirely a matter of the giver's individual rights as a person's individual right to sacrifice to buy a luxury car and instead give the money to charity. Arthur's argument commonly happens in reality but is not important for any code of ethics.

Your answer and why?

It is an immoral act to buy a luxury car while other people are starving. Though buying a luxury car is merely subjective, it always reaches a time when it is better to spend that money on people who need it most.

Though Author argues that a person has the right to spend money the way they please, escaping the moral obligation is difficult. We have the duty to help and give to the poor but not deprive ourselves from our own happiness like buying a luxurious car.

People however, need to reexamine the manner in which they spend their money. The morality of spending must also be questioned to limit other people's spending behavior. Instead the money spent on luxury things can be given to charity to prevent the poor from starving. This is morally good both for the individual and the society.

Are you acting immorally by paying college tuition for your own children while other children are starving to death?

Singer's answer and why?

Singer maintains that paying tuition fees for your children while other children are starving to death is blameworthy. He puts the real necessities and priorities of life into perspective. It is reasonable to sacrifice a bit of inconvenience so as to correct a status quo of extreme peril.

Donating money for paying college tuition for your children is minimal compared to the moral obligation that makes it a duty of saving human lives. A moral obligation need not be far beyond the abilities of an ordinary man by helping the children starving to death instead of paying college tuition for their children. It will be morally wrong to pay tuition for your child while other children are starving to death. Seeing them dead will not give you happiness but helping them will come with a good feeling of doing the right thing.

Arthur's answer and why?

Arthur believes that it is our choice to help the poor however, to help children who are dying is a positive right with no contracts and agreements. If we are capable of preventing any bad thing from happening (children dying of hunger) without sacrificing something of moral importance (like paying tuition for your children), then it is our moral obligation to do it. If children suffer from hunger each single day, and it leads to death it is a bad thing. This makes it our moral duty or obligation to help them.

Your answer and why?

It is unethical and wrong to pay tuition for your children while other children are starving to death. If we have the power to help, morally, we ought to do it. It is our duty to help children who are dying of anger. Charity comes with the moral duty of preventing bad things from happening. The money that could have been used to pay for tuition fees needs to be sent to the poor who need it for their basic needs like food, clothing and shelter. This will be morally good both for the individual and the society.

Animal Rights

My reaction to the "Meet Your Meat" clip from PETA?

The horrific events that animals go through in fur farms and slaughterhouses are real and I am disappointed and repulsed by the manner in which animals are treated and animal abuse in the meat industry. I agree that most meat industries are involved in animal abuse but PETA videos go to the extreme. There is nothing natural in how it treats animals, from processing to the final product. All they care about is the final product which they sell at increasing profits.

I will have to try and eat less meat and people need to watch what goes into their plates. The things shown in the video is not the norm as no one would like to be treated in the same manner. Animals should be treated respectfully and humanely. Treating the animals as it is seen in PETA is not economical. Animal abuse laws and punishments need to apply for farm and factory animals. We need to consider a vegan lifestyle to support animal rights because their harsh treatment is unethical.

What does Tom Regan mean by "inherent value" and why does he believe that limiting inherent value to human beings is a mistake?

Inherent value is the intrinsic value or moral standing that is attributed to every creature having a life, which matters to it. Thus having an inherent value is to have a right that one should not be treated as a means or instrument to others. People possess inherent value by virtue, whether it is acknowledged or not.

To limit the inherent value in human beings will allow people to treat animals as an instrument or a mere resource, which only exist for their benefits. People will have instrumental value and violate animal rights and fail to respect their independent values. People will think animals do not feel pain and only human pain may be considered morally relevant. People will treat animals cruelly because they lack sympathy, making it a tragic failure of human beings. They will lack the aptitude to fathom morality by considering animals as resources that can be surgically manipulated and eaten, the rights of animals will remain at stake. Human beings must therefore ascribe moral rights or inherent value to all subjects of life including animals.

According to Carl Cohen, if some nonhuman animals display mental skills beyond the capacity of human beings, might those nonhuman animals have rights?

Carl Cohen's argument is against animal rights. A right is a potential claim that an individual can exercise against another. Only species with the moral capacity have the rights. Humans confront decisions that are mainly morals, but non-human animals despite their mental skills lack the free moral judgment. However, having the moral capacity needs autonomy, and non-human animals lack autonomy to mean they have no rights. This is the major Carl Cohen argument on animal rights.

As a right holder, you must, one must be able to understand rules of duty and recognize their interest and what is just. It is only human beings who have the moral capabilities. They possess rights and are governed by moral rules. Non-human animals do not have the moral capabilities and are not members of a moral community, thus, they do not have rights. Using non-human animals in carrying out research does not violate animals' rights as they do not have rights to be violated. To have a right, you must have obligations and to treat non-human animals like humans does not mean they have rights.

How does Mary Anne Warren distinguish the strong animal rights position and the weak one?

Mary Ann Warren looks into the position of strong animal rights by Tom Regan to show the problems in his theory that are unpersuasive and obscure. Warren rejects the validity of the inherent value and considers the argument of Regan as skeptical. Warrants see the inherent value as a non-natural property that has to take on faith. Regan considers inherent value as an independent value of oneself. Thus, this means that all sentient beings have inherent values because they are subject to life, which has an existence that can either be better or worse.

Mary Ann Warren also argues that Inherent values have to come in degrees and distinguish animals, which are subject to a life form animals that are not subject to a life. Since the extent in which animals feel pain, m...