How Does Arthur Reflect On The Concept Of Entitlement

Arthur argues that singer does not reflect on the concept of entitlement and demands an overhaul of our moral code. When Arthur speaks about entitlement he states that if one is choosing to refuse to help someone one must show the unpleasantness that it would bring to himself and his family or you must consent. Arthur further goes on to state that if the farmers grows his own food he should be entitled to keep it for himself, because he earned it. That he should not be obligated to give what he earns away. In discussing further, Arthur discusses the we are not entitled to give body, that it is your body and you have a right to it and that outweighs any obligation one has to help another individual in need. Arthur argues that if we give everything
equal consideration, then Singers general principle should be called the “Greater moral evil rule”. Consequently, these requirements are much to demanding on an individual.
There a few points of similarity between Singer and Arthur, however they are not one percent in agreement. They both have the same view point, that by to helping would be wrong, that we should help others who are suffering and we do not ignore that which is around us. Secondly, they agree that if we have disposable income and we have acquired it we can give those fund to places that are needed, this would agree with the ethical principle of a moral obligation. Third, they agree that people have the right to determine what amount of funds they feel comfortable to give up, which provides for a comparable moral significance which regard to poverty.
In conclusion, all these similarities are relevant in human nature and that there is a sense of some moral obligation to help those in need. Overall, John Arthur and Peter Singer believe that moral obligation are what drives individuals to make decisions that are based on helping someone in need and peoples suffering is of significant