Helping People in Need a Supererogation or an Obligation

Helping throng in consider a supererogation or an pledge People in sad nations ar starving to goal when we atomic number 18 enjoying our delicious meal with our friends and family. at that place argon various governanceal supporter-projects and privately run charities which argon li open for delivering grants from the relatively wealthy nations to the nations in need. I believe it is a virtuously right thing to jock the people in need, hardly non e actually whiz of us would mould donations unbendablely.Peter Singer uses the dr takeing electric razor manakin to call people rethink round this current scenario. He believes that it is our obligation to alleviate the people in despicable development countries. There ar objections to his stance, hardly before considering and discussing from both sides, I am now passing game to describe and explain the Singers drowning baby bird face first. Imagine a kidskin is drowning in a shallow pond and livery the child s life means jumping into the pond and thitherby find outting ones raiment wet and muddy. Would you still lay aside the child? every of those having a rational mind go out-of-door say yes. In malice of the bad consequence of fouling the clothes, saving the childs life is deterrent sheathly what we ought to do as the importance of the childs life so distant outweighs the little cost of getting ones clothes wet and muddy. It is within our power to prevent the childs death without sacrificing something that is of even greater importance. Thus, this is what we ought to do and it is our obligation to prevent something this bad from possibility (Singer, 1997).Even when there are otherwise people near the pond who are equally qualified of saving the child but are doing zipper but simply passing by, would you still jump in and save the child? Similarly, all of those being asked said yes. It simply does non repair any object lesson difference to the situation. Undoubtedly, n on saving the child in this situation capability invent one feeling less sinful but everyone thinks that we ought to save the child. We keep that this is our moral obligation and it would be scathe non doing so (Singer, 1997). Then what if the child were being far away, peradventure even in another country?Would people still defy the same stance? The answer is yes. Distance and nationality do not make not saving the child just. Whichever child or even adult, if saving his life is what we are able to do without having something of great signifi so-and-soce to us being sacrifice, we ought to do that. This is chastely what we ought to do without violating other things that are of alike or higher(prenominal) moral importance (Singer, 1972). The situation of the drowning child example is actually synonymous with those hungry children and adults twinge from famine or other disasters, both natural or man-made.If we agree that saving the child that are drowning in a pond is moral ly what we ought to do and not doing so is unjust, then why should we think otherwise when it comes to processing the people who are suffering in poor developing countries? Why does reservation stiff donations to nations in need not our moral obligation whereas saving the child drowning in a pond is? We have agreed that distance and nationality does not matter in this moral stance. Moreover, the problem of being too far away from the sufferers and we expertness not be able to come to their aid in time has been overcome by the effort of charities.What is it that stop us from making regular donations? There are explanations to this bipolar situation, giving reasons to servicing better understanding the causes leading to this global scenario. First of all, saving the drowning child is circumstances out directly, while making a donation is not. The donation will be distributed to the people in need through the government or some privately run charities. Some of the donation will b e used for administrative cost or get swallowed up in putridness.People will never know how some(prenominal) of their donation posterior really be given to those in need. As corruption is commonly a prevalent problem in many of the developing countries, people sometimes have the worry that their donation might not coif to their right purposes but only be ended up in greedy hands. This worry is reasonable but actually most of the donations eject get to serve their proper purposes (Giving What We Can, 2012). Although not all of the sum can be used for aid, the part of it that gets to its destination still can make the best of its worth.The aid organizations may not be one-hundred percent cost-effective, but they can help to solve the problem of distance, serving as an component for delivery. There are many people around the realism who are compassionate about the plight of the others. Charities and governmental organizations collect the support and help distributing them to the areas in need. I think this is by far the most efficient way of giving out a serving hand. The cost for presidential term is inevitable and the part of donations spent on it could be seen as for musical accompaniment these organizations to keep running.Furtherto a greater extent, in my point of view, there are al shipway ways to minimize corruption. We can donate money to aid projects that do not involve valuable goods or specifically make donations to programs which serves to tackle the corruption problem in where it is prevailing. The probability of wasting a proportion of the donations should not mean aiding being useless. Those that can get though may make a substantial change that we could not imagine. The second explanation is about the psychological difference between the drowning child example and the reality.We feel more related to the sufferers when we could see them. The feeling of guilt for not helping is lesser when we could not see or witness the sufferings (Si nger, 1972). Although it makes one feels less flagitious without the sight of suffering presenting nearby, it does not make helping those further away a lower priority morally. As we have discussed that distance is not a considering factor in deciding whether it is our obligation to help or not, both of those from our own country and from the other countries deserve our help.Moreover, in this ripen of the prosperous development of media technology, charities and governmental aid agencies can effectively array the current situation of the emaciated children to the public. Therefore, it does not sound very plausible to me saying that people not making donations is because of the lack of awareness of the issue. gibe to Peter Singer, a moral philosopher, if we are able to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it (Singer, 1972).Some people object this position. I am going to summarize those object ions. For one of the reasons is that this is simply too native as most people do not judge those who are ignorant of the others suffering. People usually criticize those who violate some moral norms, for example murdering, sex assault,etc. Some writers, including Sidgwick and Urmson, Stated that if the moral enroll that we bewilder is too hard too uphold, there will be a superior general breakdown in the moral system (Singer, 1972).The moral code that we are currently using mainly includes not invading the others privileges, for example stealing, killing, etc and other things that could help keeping the society safe and sound. Helping the poor nations is not necessary for the wealthy nations. Thus, people usually do not see it as what they must do. This is regrettable but understandable. If making regular donations to those in need is being made to be an obligation and a moral code, it might be too hard for everyone to follow. Eventually, people might choose not to follow anythi ng from the moral code (Singer, 1972).Singer argues that if the conduct is good, why should we categorize it into morally obligatory or morally optional? If godliness means doing something good, then shouldnt a good conduct be in the moral code? Moreover, drawing a line to divide conducts into the aforesaid(prenominal) categories is by no means easy. It is hard to define the standard to be used for distinguishing conducts into two casts. Helping the people in need in other countries is ceaselessly be defined as a free-hearted and selfless gesture. However, Singer thinks otherwise. He thinks that our traditional moral categories are befuddled.He objects the traditional distinction that is drawn between duty and charity by using the current standard. It is our moral obligation to prevent as overmuch sufferings as possible in the meantime not sacrificing something else of comparable moral importance (Singer, 1972). How does a man act is actually influenced by the general societal values and the people around him. When a man making a donation or joining voluntary services to help those in need is being praised for his generosity, he would think that what he has through with(p) is a supererogation.Actually, coming to the others aid to prevent suffering without sacrificing as much is an obligation that people usually overlook. This situation is for long being regulate by the general social atmosphere and this is what being upsetting. The moral strength of people is shaped by each other and also the society. Admittedly, helping those is need is always greatly encouraged. However, this is by no means enough. Preventing as much sufferings as possible without causing sacrifices as significant is morally obligatory and not doing so should be seen as unjust (Singer, 1972).I agree with Singer that if it is within ones ability to help, saving other people from suffering seems to be just and morally right, while otherwise seems wrong. Although there might be concern s that what we have given might not be able to serve their greatest worth, I believe that the part of aids that get to the hands of those in need is able to make a significant change in their lives. There are worries that helping those poor developing countries might worsen the current situation. Firstly, those countries usually have a higher birth-rate.The aids that we give now would only support them to have a even greater population that the countries themselves are not able to lean (Giving What We Can, 2012). This might leads to a greater demand in foreign help and eventually turns into an ever-expanding cycle. This worry is understandable but there are always other alternatives to help in this kind of situation. For fear of the problem of overpopulation, donations could be made to organizations that help in promoting and enhancing birth-control in the developing countries.Moreover, the reason shag the scene of them having a high birth-rate is the high mortality rate of childr en. They need a large family size to ensure having enough manpower to stock care of the family, to work and to earn. If their lives were not this hard, the birth-rate would presumably decline (Giving What We Can, 2012). The other worry is that the developing countries might become more and more dependent on the aids (Giving What We Can, 2012). This worry is again not necessary as there are many aid projects that are actually aiming at helping those developing nations to be self-supportive.People in some of the poor nations are taught to stimulate crops for supporting themselves and for selling to make money. Donations could be made to support this kind of projects. Moreover, helping those in need does not necessarily means perpetuation their life expectancy but might be about ameliorate their living quality (Giving What We Can, 2012). One example is performing a fair eye operation to cure their eye diseases so that they could see the world more clearly. It is our obligation to help the others in need when it is within our own power without sacrificing something of higher importance.Death and sufferings are things that should be prevented. This is what we ought to do. With the gap between the copious and the poor growing everyday, our moral attitude towards giving out aids should be revised. Helping should not be seen as a supererogation but an moral obligation. References Giving What We Can. (2012). Myths About Aids, from http//www. givingwhatwecan. org/why-give/myths-about-aid Singer, Peter. (1972). Famine, Affluence, and Morality. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1(1), 230-234. Singer, Peter. (1997). The Drowning Child and the Expanding Circle. password Internationalist, 1.