Donations must come from voluntary choice and good will and not a moral obligation. In that regard therefore, the amount and individual or a person wishes to donate is solely their choice, they can therefore donate a little or a substantial amount. Imposing a moral obligation to donation negates the very purpose and definition of donation, imposing of moral obligation to donate implicitly sacrifices an individual autonomy which is of something of immense moral worth.
Extreme poverty is associated with a number of effects including increase in crime, disease, increased mortality rate, slow development to mention a few. Despite all these effects of extreme poverty, it does not increase the obligation of the wealthy to give relief directed to people in extreme poverty. Utilitarian’s, however hold the position that we have the duty to give extensive aid to strangers who live in poverty, because by donating a small fraction of their income the rich lose nothing of moral significance (Yu, 2018). The same is negated by the social contrast theorists as they view giving not to be a moral obligation.
Singers argument on the utilitarian standpoint is that by the rich giving to the poor it allows an appreciable gain in the quality of life for the disadvantaged and the poor. He adds that the need to help the poor is illustrating a contrasting position of excess. I do not agree because it still takes away an individual’s autonomy to donate.
Eating meat is immoral. Obtaining animal meat is a product of causing animal suffering which is immoral. The pain that animals endure is close to or even just as real as that felt by humans. We should feel compassion for animals the same way we would for a human being.
Singer finds that animals merits equal rights because like humans, there should be equal considerations of interests which embraces all animals with the differences that exists in them and it should be used as a basis of relations for our species and in relating with other species too (Rachels, & Rachels,2015). Norcross argue that what Fred does to puppies is the same as what we do to eat meat as in both animals are tortured to enjoy their products.
On the question of the effect of not eating meat having no impact Norcross replies that it can make a difference as people refraining from purchasing the meat will affect the industry. I agree with him because slowly but surely with the increase of number of people a number will be reached that will affect the industry.
The world presently is faced by several environmental issues. The major one being overpopulation. Global warming, depletion of natural resources, waste disposal, deforestation, climate change and ocean acidification are just but a few of environmental challenges we are facing in the world today.
Human beings have an obligation to change how they live so that they can reduce or eliminate the harm caused to the environment. The ways of man have adverse effects to the environment which consequently affects our lives. Lifestyle changes can include recycling, using alternative sources of energy and implementing environmental conservation measures at a community level.
The government may help by putting in places policies towards environmental conservation. Technology may be used to reverse some adverse effects caused where possible and also monitor human activities.
Aldo calls for members of the community to treat one another with respect for the mutual benefit of all. The word community here is expanded to include not only humans but also other parts of the earth (Land). Good relationship between humans and land will bear good results for both. Aldo looks at ecological conscience as efforts to conserve land which is lacking among farmers. Taking only an economic approach to ecological conservation is doomed as it does not cover all the fundamental aspects. No important change in human conduct is possible to achieve without internal change in our intellectual emphasis on our loyalties and convictions (Rachels, & Rachels,2015).
On world poverty my position is that there is no moral obligation for the rich to give to those living in extreme poverty. I found the argument on individuals’ autonomy convincing because if an aspect takes away an individual autonomy then it is not moral. The argument on giving as an exchange of extremities was unconvincing as it does not provide a strong basis to give. My position on the treatment of animals is that it is immoral to eat meat as they go through torture to obtain meat and other products and that there should be equality in animal treatment. The convincing argument is one raised by Aldo that it doesn’t matter if you do it yourself or hire someone less to slaughter an animal it still goes through pain to have it on the table. Unconvincing argument is that stopping eating meat does not make to a difference as it actually does eventually with increased number of people not taking meat. On environmental ethics, I believe that there should be a god relationship between man and land to ensure mutual benefits. Convincing argument is on the benefits of land conservation and improvement of the environment
Defining what is morally right and wrong sometimes goes beyond personal expectations and desires while in other cases it is more straight forward and easy to define. In the aspect of eating eat for example, it is possible to say that quite a large population of people eat meat and do not find it wrong as the vegetarians would. Therefore, when looking at moral aspects of world poverty, environmental ethics and treatment of animals its essential to address it broadly.
Rachels, J. & Rachels, S. (2015) The right thing to do (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill
Yu, R. (2018). Against A Moral Obligation to Donate. Retrieved 15 June 2020, from https://medium.com/reformermag/against-a-moral-obligation-to-donate-34342ced899c