Moral Duty With Kantianism And Utilitarianism
Poverty is a major problem in the world today. There is so many people living in harsh conditions. As we may ask ourselves about the moral duty on what we are supposed to do. Many of us start to think what our moral responsibility to help other people is. People living with less than 2.50 a day. If we actually think about how much that is, I can spend that on a cup of coffee every morning. Such strategy deserves moral consideration. Therefore, I would discuss the different arguments to approaching our moral duty with Kantianism and Utilitarianism.
Poverty is the state that a certain person is lacking material things or money. Extreme cases of poverty is when a person is deprived of their basic needs like food, water, shelter, health care, …show more content…
A utilitarian would probably say that what bring better consequences. Singer was a utilitarian he would say that it is our obligation to help because instead of wasting money on a new television or new clothes the consequences would be better if you would help someone else in need. He also talks about how it’s not like all of our income is going for helping people in need. He argues that it will only be a small part of your income. He believes this because if people don’t spend it in something charitable they will eventually end up using it for something that isn’t at all useful or moral. Next point, is that if we have the power from controlling something bad to happen when do it. Singer states that “without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it” (Singer). He means that if it doesn’t create something bad, or make the situation worse, then why not do it. We should want to do things morally good, not make them worse. I think that we should be making a better deal of this matter. I think that it would be better to campaign for public and private contributions. The government should also takes its place to step up. People think that it’s just up to the government to contribute to these matters. This is an excuse people take so they can look the other way and not contribute. People also question how much they should give back to charities or for good causes. We should give money for when we think we have giving enough to prevent bad things from happening, and by doing so we would have to sacrifice, something moral significant to
Poverty is the state that a certain person is lacking material things or money. Extreme cases of poverty is when a person is deprived of their basic needs like food, water, shelter, health care, …show more content…
A utilitarian would probably say that what bring better consequences. Singer was a utilitarian he would say that it is our obligation to help because instead of wasting money on a new television or new clothes the consequences would be better if you would help someone else in need. He also talks about how it’s not like all of our income is going for helping people in need. He argues that it will only be a small part of your income. He believes this because if people don’t spend it in something charitable they will eventually end up using it for something that isn’t at all useful or moral. Next point, is that if we have the power from controlling something bad to happen when do it. Singer states that “without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it” (Singer). He means that if it doesn’t create something bad, or make the situation worse, then why not do it. We should want to do things morally good, not make them worse. I think that we should be making a better deal of this matter. I think that it would be better to campaign for public and private contributions. The government should also takes its place to step up. People think that it’s just up to the government to contribute to these matters. This is an excuse people take so they can look the other way and not contribute. People also question how much they should give back to charities or for good causes. We should give money for when we think we have giving enough to prevent bad things from happening, and by doing so we would have to sacrifice, something moral significant to