The argument on whether one is obligated to offer help to those who need has been ongoing for quite a while. At one point or another, most people have wondered on how much or when exactly they should help the needy, and whether doing so is some sort of moral obligation. The way people build and live their lives is greatly influenced by the above questions regarding the moral obligation or not and when and how often to do the same. Regardless of whether a person is religious or otherwise, the matter applies to each human being alive. The subject being an ethical debate, it has been fiercely discussed in numerous situations. While some believe that we are in a cruel world, a man-eat-man world where certain people have to go through suffering simply because not everyone can survive, others believe in equal opportunities to live without sorrow. The latter believe that we can all live misery-free lives by offering aid to the poor and the needy by providing financial help to such materially fortunate persons around us. With that said, the big question is, under what circumstances are we obligated to stretch a hand to those in need?
According to an Australian philosopher Peter Singer, the world giving to charity is neither being generous or a charitable act but rather a duty and not doing so would be doing the wrong thing (Singer, 2011). It does not make sense living luxuriously and at the same time your neighbors are dying from diseases that can be easily prevented and you are not doing anything to help. Singer insists that every individual in a position to help has a responsibility to lower the levels of poverty and death just because they have the ability to do so. However, the arguments of Singer are not always put to place since many rich nations of the world continue to fail in helping poor countries whose citizens continue to perish from poverty related illnesses. Such acts by prominent nations are simply ethically indefensible. It is not just the absence of charity in the case of such rich nations or even moral saintliness, but rather an act of ignorance that cannot be justified (Singer, 2002). And since such a duty is not enforceable, giving is totally up to the giver and they cannot be forced to do so. To drink what he preaches, Peter Singer offers a quarter of his total income although he stresses that he should be giving even more.
Therefore, we are obligated to help the poor at any time and condition, provided we have the ability to do so. Moreover, Consequentialism states that we should and must reduce suffering and offer as much help as we can to the greatest number of people we can. As a result, we will not help the suffering around the world but also make it a better place. Furthermore, $50 to a prosperous individual is much less valued than the same amount for a penniless person. Consequently, if the wealthy person contributes that $50 it lessens more misery than if affluent person used for their own need.
In his book Moral matters, Jan Narveson explains the difference the between duties of justice and duties of charity in the chapter “Feeding the hungry” (Narveson, 1999). According to his distinction, Jan Nerveson insists that the demands of justice are strictly enforceable while the demands of charity are not. The above implies that sometimes it is at least morally allowed to force an individual to act justly but it is never morally permissible to force a person to be charitable at any point. It should be understood that Jan Narveson does not disagree with the fact that people should offer help to the needy, at least to some degree (Csus, 2017). What he insists is that it is utterly wrong to force someone to offer help to the needy if the person in question is not willing to do so. For Jan, establishing whether feeding the hungry is a matter of charity or a matter of justice is important. Narveson’s stand is that nursing the hungry – seeing to the wants of strangers – is an issue of charity as opposed to an obligation of justice. Jan Narveson also holds that the world has a duty to charity, such a duty is not strong enough to require people to help until it hurts. We only have an obligation to help those in need but just a modest effort according to this Philosopher but not do the same so often. Such a claim is supported by general considerations that our elementary duty to show respect to others does not necessitate a commitment to sacrifice for them and that the statement every person’s interest counts equally is not true but it is rather relative to each individual.
In a Redistributionists point of view, Jan Narveson implies that a person should live their life in whatever way they deem fit and pursue the same only if the person is alive (Csus, 2017). Therefore, by helping other people such as feeding the hungry, we simply make it possible for such needy to live their lives as they deem fit and at the same time we respect the values of such individuals. On the other hand, if we do help the needy, or we just put little or no effort, we allow the needy to die but we have the ability to save them. By letting them die of a sickness while we hold the cure on our hands, we simply disrespect them as well as their values. We therefore have an obligation to help others as long as we have the power to do so irrespective of what we think of ourselves or of such people.
The book “The Life You Can Save” by Peter Singer insists that a person is indeed obligated to help the needy (Singer, 2009). The author argues that if it is within your means to prevent something bad such as poverty from happening, then it is morally right to do so. He continues to add that one should offer help to the needy provided the helper does not sacrifice something closely as vital. The issue of charity then emerges since a giver is offered chance to help basic needs as shelter, food or medical care to those lacking the same. Consequently, on the word of Singer, failure to donate to help those suffering is immoral. He insists that an individual has an ethical obligation to give donations if the person has the ability to do so.
A major objection to the ethical obligation as required by Singer is that since people work too hard to earn their money, they should spend it as they wish. Obviously, there are people who do not wish to spend their hard-earned cash on charity and they are right in doing so. Everyone should have the freedom to decide what to do with their cash. Moreover, people have an obligation server their kin over random strangers. It would be wrong to spend money on an impoverished village in Africa while your children or relatives are suffering. The same case applies on self, spending all your earnings on charity and none on yourself is not practical at all.
In conclusion, the best time to give help to the needy is when you have spent enough on yourself and your kin. Generally, you are only obligated to give to the needy when you have meet your own needs as well as those of your kin. Even though donating to people in need is undeniably ethical, donating too much is not practical. Spend as much money as you are comfortable donating according to your financial ability. Every person strives each day to live happily and helping someone achieve that is respectable. Whether you agree with the idea that giving is an obligation or not, helping the needy does no harm, give to charity when you can