Narveson's Argumentative Analysis

Often there is the question if the wealthy are obligated to help those less fortunate, perhaps in the realms of legality and morality. Through examining two author’s works on this issue, this paper will find the answer. Particularly, by comparing these two different views on the starvation issue, the goal is to demonstrate how one argument fails and the other succeeds. The works chosen include Peter Singer’s paper on starvation, as well as Jan Narveson’s, and both have opposing views on the argument. It has been found that the argument which excels is that of Narveson. This is because his argument affirms that starvation is a problem, and it is charitable and in good faith to give to the poor, but this should not be considered a moral duty
It is not in every case that someone could take the responsibility for starvation, since there are situations where this occurs because of “plague, crop-failure due to drought, or sheer lack of knowledge” (Davis, 2014, p. 216). The question instead should be if the amply fed become guilty when they do not aid these victims. To this Narveson emphasizes that people should let others live their various lives, it is more beneficial to “respect each other’s pursuits” or “let each person live as that person sees fit” and feeding the starving would go against this lifestyle (Davis, 2014, p. 217). This is because trying to enforce a policy would force farmers and merchants to give their hard-earned produce for no compensation, which can be equated to stealing rather than charity. Additionally, he tears down the “ethics of the hair shirt” where it claims that one is obligated to “continually defer to others in the organization of my activities, and shall be assailed by guilt whenever I am not bending my energies to the relief of those allegedly less fortunate than I,” which in turn drags the giver into poverty him or herself (Davis, 2014, p. 217). Furthermore, his argument also includes that sustaining the starving population means that next generations will be larger, unpreventable situations will still remain despite aid, and this equates to starvations existence in
In Paul Collier and David Dollar’s article, “Can the World Cut Poverty in Half? How Policy Reform and Effective Aid Can Meet International Development Goals,” they discuss how to cut poverty in half. The article focuses on using math in order to calculate the aid necessary to keep those in need stable. For example, they found “that the typical aid dollar was associated with a marginal cost poverty reduction of $6,293; that is a one-time gift of $6,293 leads to one person permanently moving out of poverty” (Collier & Dollar, 2001, p. 1793). Though of course not everyone can give this sort of donation, it in fact appears that it does not take much in order to help the starving get out of their situation, and collectively this means only a little over 6,000 individuals need to donate one dollar in order to help one person. Certainly, there needs to be more funding from people rather than governments in order to truly make an impact. It is hopeful that most individuals who have a large income feel charitable to help those in need, regardless whether or not they agree that they are morally obligated to do