In this essay. you will explain and analyze the arguments of two contemporary philosophers. Peter Singer and Jan Naneson. who have opposing positions on the same issue. Singer. in the course handout "Peter Singer's World Poverty Argument." and Nan•son. in the handout "Feeding the Hungry." both address the following question: Do people with wealth that exceeds their essential needs have a moral obligation to help those in life-threatening poverty around the world?
The essay needs an introduction paragraph that includes a thesis statement, and it needs a conclusion paragraph. The body of the essay should consist of the following: 1. Explain Peter Singer's argument, being sure to address the following points: • What is Singer's conclusion concerning whether people with the ability to help have a moral obligation to help those in life-threatening poverty around the world? • Vhat reason.Vpremises does Singer give to support his conclusion? • What is the example of the drowning child, and how does it illustrate Singer's argument? • What is the example of Bob and the Bugatti• and how does it illustrate Singer's argument? • How much are we obligated to give, according to Singer? What is Singer's reasoning for why we are obligated to give that much? • How does the fact that others are also in a position to help affect ow own obligation to help. according to Singer? What is Singer's reasoning for his view? • What are the differences. according to Singer, between giving as a moral obligation versus giving as an act of charity? Why should we consider giving to international aid organizations that address extreme poverty to be a moral obligation rather than an act of charity? 2. Explain Jan Narveson's argument, being sure to address the following points: • what is Narveson's conclusion concerning whether people with the ability to help have a moral obligation to help those in life-threatening poverty around the world? • What are the differences between killing and letting die and between starving versus allowing to starve. and how do these distinctions support Nanton's conclusion about whether giving to the world's neediest is a moral obligation? • To what extent. according to Narveson. should we be expected to help a stranger in time of need? • What is Narveson's reasoning for the claim that not everyone counts equally for us? • what is 2Jan-won's view concerning giving to others as an act of charity?
- Explain all the ways in which the views of Singer and Nanton conflict with each other.
Sample Solution