Intro to Ethics Questions 3. Social Sciences Coursework

Introduction to Ethics Questions
Student’s Name
Institution
Introduction to Ethics
Question 1: Singer
From his arguments, Peter Singer presents himself as a utilitarian ethicist whose concept of morality primarily focuses on the consequences. More specifically, Singer is inclined to act utilitarianism, which requires one to act for the greater good to be regarded as morally right. Singer equates the failure to help the needy at the expense of ones’ comfort with failure to help a drowning kid in a pond or leaving a child to be run over by a train to safeguard a Bugatti. As an act-utilitarianist, Singer's arguments imply that the consequences of having a wealthy group not helping the needy are far much worse than having to sacrifice whatever one possesses in excess. Sacrificing the excess possession for the greater good is morally right according to Singer's arguments. Singer also seems to side with the duty-based ethicist when he argues that it is a moral obligation to prevent something as bad as famine from happening when in a position to help, provided the sacrifice made is of less harm.
Singer's arguments and examples might be seductive and moving, especially where he puts one in a scenario where they are supposed to choose between the life of a child and a luxury car. However, there are arguments against Singer's stand on morality. The principle puts more pressure on those who are affluent and may curtail their freedom at the expense of morality. The principle also puts the interest of others first, limiting ones' freedom to choose what is best for them. With this kind of belief, one is likely to be taken advantage of. Nonetheless, giving up what is non-essential to help those in need sounds morally right and that explains why Singer’s principle remains very influential.
Question 2: Justice and Charity – Narveson
Unlike Peter Singer, Jan Narveson portrays morality based on responsibility as opposed to an obligation. In that case, Narveson's arguments align with that of the deontological ethicists. The flexibility of deontological ethics raises an important question of justice and charity. According to Narveson, justice implies the things that one may be forced to do to ensure other people's rights and freedoms are not conflicted. Charity, on the other hand, entails the thing done out of goodwill without any form of coercion. Depending on the motive, the two terms can be used interchangeably, meaning it is not always right to argue that being charitable cannot be an obligation. In some cases, the authority compels the citizens to be charitable to others.
Some scenarios might present themselves in a manner that is difficult to differentiate on whether it is an act of justice or charity, creating some kind of moral dilemma. An example is given by Narveson; feeding the hungry can fall on either side of the moral divide. When the government is compelled to feed the hungry, the act becomes an act of justice but when individuals’ conscience is the determining factor, it then becomes an act of charity. In most cases, especially with deontological ethics, one is more likely to argue on the grounds of justice or charity; therefore, it is important to distinguish between the two confound...