Leben 1

Ace Leben
Betsy Natter
Design and Society
11 November 2014
Paper on Social Responsibility for Aid to the Distant
Are people that are sufficiently well off morally obligated to give aid to the poor? In Jan
Narvesons article Is World Poverty A Moral Problem For The Wealthy? he states that we are
not morally obligated to help the poor. He states that there is no justice to be sought for in the
distribution of wealth because it is unalterably correlated to technology and the ability to convert
intelligence into profitable endeavors. He acknowledges the main issue in most poor countries
which, is bad government and that the solution is not a redistribution of property but a joint effort
to mutual advantage. Opposite of his perspective is Dale Jamiesons view in his article Duties
to the Distant: Aid, Assistance and Intervention in the Developing World which is, in agreement
with Peter Singer where Singer says if a sacrifice to help lives doesnt harm your own you are
morally obligated to sacrifice. He believes that there are two types of solution to poverty,
humanitarian aid and developmental aid but, each he states has its faults. Following that, he
claims we should attack the structure which births poverty instead of indirect ambitions. My
perspective is that our moral obligation should be determined through ethical relativistic qualities
such as what type of education and experience you have in the issue and the opportunities you
have in contributing should dictate your passion and moral obligation.

First, Jan Narveson believes poor people dont deserve justice given by us because we
werent created equal and shouldnt be treated equally. He supports this by saying By what
conceivable application of any recognizable notion of justice can one imagine somehow the
world is to blame for not making all humans, or all organisms, exactly the same - and what is
Leben 2

worse, to turn around and start blaming individual human beings for not doing something to try
to bring it about that they are?(Narveson 404). He claims that unalterable circumstances in
advancements in technology and intelligence converted into profit caused poverty. He disagrees
with charity as a solution because it doesnt satisfy the sympathy of the masses but is
manipulated by bureaucrats for profit. The only solution he claims is if the rich and poor come to
mutual advantage, where both are collaborating to better both groups.

Second, Dale Jamieson if the sacrifice is doesn't harm you or the poor then you are
morally obligated to give. He supports this by giving an example where he says...donating $200
to OXFAM is equivalent to getting our clothes muddy...What matters is that lives can effectively
be saved simply by donating to organizations such as OXFAM,(Jamieson 152). Jamieson
completely disregards humanitarian aid as a solution to poverty. He supports his view by
stating, In the summer of 2003, millions of Ethiopians were again at risk from famine...A recent
Christian Aid report blames structural problems...The report goes on to say that food aid is not
the answer. In this humanitarian efforts are in food aid. Another, claim he makes is that
development aid is inefficient in its pursuit because of conflicting goals and donor selfishness.
The conflicting goals are mainly because of donor selfishness where, the money is used for
profit and put into improper solutions to the issue.

I say the degree of moral obligation should vary person to person because the
education, experience and opportunities they have dictates if they can give and how they give. I
agree somewhat with Jan Narveson in that some of us arent morally obligated but I think its
because those who arent educated enough to give to the most efficient charity, havent
experienced
Leben 3

poverty to understand the issue or dont have enough wealth to give shouldnt be morally
obligated to join the cause. Otherwise, I think if you meet all the criteria you should have more
passion and moral obligation to at the very least give a small portion of your income to the most
efficient charity. Now I stated multiple times that charity must go to the most efficient because
of what Narveson discussed about corrupt bureaucrats and what Jamieson said about
humanitarian aid being short term and developmental aid being inefficient. Finally, I dont
believe in Narvesons solution because mutual advantage is impossible, when you consider the
rich will always try to take advantage of the poor and not spread the knowledge they possess,
but I do believe we should support efficient developmental aid that can save lives.

Leben 4
Work Cited
Jamieson, Dale. "Duties to the Distant: Aid, Assistance, and Intervention in the
Developing World." Journal of Ethics. 9. (2005): 151-170. Print.
Narveson, Jan. "Is World Poverty a Moral Problem for the Wealthy?." Journal of Ethics.
8. (2004): 397-408. Print.