1.You are ignoring the matter of how the things we "need" are even produced. Need does not give someone a claim on something - production does. If one does not have a claim on an item, then the owner of that item has no obligation to give to the person in question.[QUOTE="Bane_09"]
Instead of giving you the half assed answer of "LOL TC thats not charity" I will try to engage with you because while I do not think people should be forced to give more, it is a moral issue that deserves a closer look. The issue then is that many people have more than they need, and many people cannot meet their needs.
I will assume the basis of your argument is "People should give more to charity" and that the reason is to "alleviate suffering". You specifically mention greed but I take it your stance is greed is bad because it prevents money and resources from going to those who truly need it.
So we start with the basis that "suffering from lack of food and other needed to survive resources is bad" (I assume these are the kind of charities you speak of TC?) You were very vague.
I also think you would agree TC and that most others on here would too that "One person's suffering from lack of resources is not greater than another person's suffering from lack of resources". This assumes that two people suffering in equal amounts, are both equally deserving of help. So someone needing food in the US is no more important than someone needing food in India.
In the past with limited technology, it was not possible to give someone across the world moral consideration but with todays technology it is very easy. Also in the modern setting we have a very robust welfare system that provides for the needs of the people in our own country(It's efficiency can certainly be questioned but that is for another conversation) So I would say that from a moral standpoint, people do give enough to take of others at least in their own country.
But does this mean that we do not have a moral obligation to give more to others around the world who need it? Many third world countries face resource shortages around the clock, and could stand to gain from more donations.
So we are at the conclusions that:
1. suffering from lack of resources is bad
2. our morallity is not limited to fellow countrymen
3. Others around the world are suffering from lack of resources
This leads me to think that we should have a moral obligation to donate more "when possible". Donating more to charity is a good thing when it does not cause more or equal suffering than it alleviates. This would mean that a poor person has no moral obligation to give to charity if he or she does not have the funds to first care for themselves and their family. Stopping here then it would definitely seem that most people have a moral obligation to donate more than they do, at least if they wish to consider themselves a morally sound individual.
So yes TC I do think most people, including myself, should give more to charity.
Laihendi
2.If you grow and maintain apple trees then those are your apples, because you made them. You have no obligation to give them away freely, as such an obligation would require you to provide for an anonymous stranger at your expense, placing his welfare before your own. To be obligated to serve anyone in need requires your life to be, by default, subservient to anyone who is in need, because he is in need. It requires that his welfare supersede your own and that you therefore serve him, because you make life possible and he does not.
3.The notion that the life of an incompetent man supersedes the lives of others because they create value and he does not, is contradictory and can only result in destruction (or the negation of production) if implemented.
1. I agree that a person has a right to what they produce and acquire by their own hand.
2. I specifically mentioned that a person should have a moral obligation to donate more when said donation does not cause equal or more suffering in the process. In your example, is the person producing far more apples than he needs? If so, I would argue that he should feel a moral obliagtion to donate those to others who are in need. Their welfare does not supercede the person who has produced the apples, but if the person has an excess of apples they are not endangering their own welfare in any way by donating more. Now if the person had only enough apples for himself, he would of course have no moral obligation of any kind. Someone like myself, who has more than they need but quite a bit, should have some kind of moral responsibility to help others out if at all possible.
3. Im assuming by an incompetent man you mean someone who refuses to look for a job? or refuses to do the work needed to provide for themselves? Lack of resources such as food in places like Africa have little to do with competence. In most cases, people are born their and shortage already exists by no fault of their own.
So I agree that just because a person is in need, that does not mean that they inherently own something that someone else has produced because the producer does not need it. I do think though, that the producer should feel a moral obligation to donate more, when doing so does not endanger their own livelihood. Of course they may keep all the apples to themselves, but is that really the morally correct thing to do?
Log in to comment