Famine, Relief and the Ideal Moral Code (Essay Sample)

Name:
Course:
Professor’s Name:
Date:
Famine, Relief and the Ideal Moral Code
John Arthur’s article starts by examining the existing human moral code. The moral code is self-contradictory. On the one hand, Arthur (829) argues that the moral code imposes a duty on people to do everything possible to stop or prevent evil from happening. This is because all human beings are equal and any differences in wealth, status or ability are due to circumstances beyond human control. Based on this argument, the author seems to be suggesting that it is justified for people to lend money or any form of support to alleviate the suffering of famine victims. Arthur (831) posits that if all people were equal, then the duty to help others would lead to greater evil. Those who have excess wealth would buy their friends or those in similar groups luxuries instead of contributing to famine relief. Thus, Arthur (832) admits that human beings are only equal in terms of negative rights that entitle individuals to certain rights and freedoms such as right to life and right to liberty. However, in terms of positive rights that arise out of agreements or contracts, there is no duty among those who do not contract or agree to enforce them.
On the other hand, the existing moral code endorses the concept of just desserts. The concept of just desserts simply implies that a person bears the weight, consequences and benefits that arise from his or her actions. For example, a farmer who has spent a lot of effort and time plowing during the Spring and Summer in order to provide for his family during the lean times, should not be forced to lend to his neighbor who may die of hunger due to his laziness and failure to cultivate. The import of just desserts is that human beings are under no duty to sacrifice their comfort and pleasure in preventing a greater evil to another person who had it coming. Consequently, the existing moral code is contradictory by imposing a duty on people to prevent evil while at the same time endorsing the concept of just deserts.
Arthur proposes the concept of ideal moral code. The ideal code is one that when adopted and followed, “… would have to the best consequences” (Arthur 835). The term best consequences imply that collectively, the moral code would lead to the well-being and overall benefit of those governed by it. Well-being refers to the welfare of the people living under the code. For instance, legal and moral standards forbid acts such as killing, robbing or assaulting others. The basis for such prohibitions is that the actions would lead to a Hobbesian world where life is short, miserable and violent. Therefore, a society or world that has no prohibitions on killing and assault would not have an ideal moral code that would maximize the welfare and well-being of the members of that society. Moral codes are merely rules that promote the wellbeing and welfare of the members of the society.
Moreover, the author uses the argument of David Hume to support the ideal moral code that maximizes human well-being. Hume believes that sentiments and feelings of members of a society explain its ideal moral code (Arthur 835). Feelings such as happiness and pain help explain the welfare of the members of the society. Individuals are pleased when everybody is happy within the society. Human beings generally sympathize and concern themselves with the welfare of others. Individuals have negative association with pain both for themselves and for others. Moral approbation and disapprobation are based on the sentiments and feelings of the people and not on reason. However, since these feelings are similar and universal in human beings, what should be of important to the individual is public and not moral sentiment and affection. Thus, an individual would take into account the consequences or utility of their actions on the well-being of the entire society. An ideal moral code would aim for the best consequences.
An issue that arises for determination is whether an ideal code would be practical in a society. Firstly, the moral code needs to be practical in order to avoid conflicts, decrease guilt that derives from non-compliance and not lead to unintended consequences. When a moral code has standards that are unpractical, the few who achieve these standards would feel aggrieved and this would lead to conflict with those who did not achieve the standards. Further, those who fail to achieve these standards would feel increased guilt. Consequently, impractical standards would minimize the welfare and well-being of the society. Secondly, the moral code should not overestimate the objectivity of individuals since people invariably rationalize their actions and interests. Rationalization would lead to interferences with people’s rights when these people are wronged. Thus, for the moral code to be practical, it should enable people to maximize the well being and welfare of others without incurring any substantial cost to the individual aiming for the best consequences.
Peter Singer’s article “Famine, Affluence and Morality” offers a counterargument to Arthur’s conception of the ideal social moral code that advocates for giving to famine relief only when it does not incur to the giver a substantial cost. Singer (231) argues that it is a moral duty for us to stop something bad or evil from happening if we thereby we do not sacrifice “…anything of comparable importance”. According to this argument, if people in India are suffering and dying from famine, the rest of the world should give to relief up to the point where such giving would also lead to famine among those gi...