John Arthur’s Requirements for an Ideal Moral Code in “Famine Relief and the Ideal Moral Code” are Invalid PDF

Preview

Summary

Argument against John Arthur's “Famine Relief and the Ideal Moral Code” with outline and objection included....

Description

Outline: 1. John Arthur argues that an ideal moral code should have public support and not assume humans are less selfish, objective, or more informed than they truly are. 2. I counter that these requirements are invalid and do not provide an excuse to not help others who desperately need us. 3. Arthur would object that without his requirements, a moral code will be ineffective. I counter that some of our current moral codes did not once have support and only gained it after the code was successfully enforced. John Arthur’s Requirements for an Ideal Moral Code in “Famine Relief and the Ideal Moral Code” are Invalid Professor John Arthur’s paper titled, “Famine Relief and the Ideal Moral Code” counters utilitarian arguments that we have a duty to assist those who are less fortunate than us as much as possible. He instead argues that due to entitlements and principles of a good moral code, we do not always have this duty. In this paper I will argue why Arthur’s requirements for what an ideal moral code should be are invalid. In his paper, Arthur addresses Peter Singer’s argument that we should prevent bad things from occurring if we can do so without sacrificing something that is as morally important in comparison. He responds that Singer’s proposed principle may overlook an individual’s rights in favor of the greater good. To demonstrate, Arthur provides the example of donating an eye or kidney to someone who needs them more critically, and points out that Singer’s principle would find this act to be a duty thus violating an individual’s right to their own body. Arthur argues that rights should outweigh the duty to help others in this case. He adds that no rights are violated

when a person refuses to help another, such as saving them from drowning, unless a contract has been made between them, such as agreeing to babysit them. Arthur also talks about just deserts by using an example of a hardworking farmer who gives food to his lazy neighbors so they won’t starve and an old Nazi criminal who isn’t sent to jail because he’s no longer a threat. He uses these examples to show how while deserts may sometimes be outweighed by other factors, they are still deserved. Lastly, Arthur discusses our current social moral code and how rights and deserts are valued in addition to morality. He claims that a good moral code should be one that most of the public supports and does not assume humans are less selfish, objective, or more knowledgeable than we truly are. Arthur’s idea of what an ideal moral code should be justifies our current social moral code and safeguards against change. It validates our excuse to not change our current lifestyle or mentality, and to also allow tens of thousands of people to die every day from starvation. Morals should not allow absurd selfishness to continue despite not being favorable with the public. Furthermore, it seems the only public that Arthur is concerned about is the wealthier population who is not at risk of starving to death. The hundreds of millions of undernourished people in our world would most likely not support our current social moral code of not giving up anything that will lead to a significant loss of happiness, thus not making our moral code a good one by Arthur’s own principles in this way. To add a historical example, many slave owners did not support the emancipation of enslaved people because they would have lost money and happiness. A moral code of not enslaving others would not have worked according to Arthur’s requirements of having public support and working around selfishness. If Arthur’s principles for an ideal moral code was always followed, there would still be more evil in this world and little significant

change would ever occur. Arthur’s arguments of what an ideal moral code consists of is not a valid excuse to not do what is right. Arthur would object that if the public does not support a moral code, it will not be effective and thus turn into a bad moral code. I counter that there are other ways to change the moral code than by just hoping the public will support it. In the example I brought up previously, slave owners were forced to emancipate enslaved people by order of the president and enforced by the army to do what was right. Not enslaving other people is now part of our moral code, even though emancipating enslaved people was not supported by everyone because they were selfish and did not want to lose happiness at the time. While we will lose some money that will lead to what some consider a significant loss of happiness if we mandate people to donate, preventing others from dying from starvation is what’s right and may be widely accepted into our social moral code in the future....