Famine Relief

I think we should give all types of aid. Immediate, developmental, and population control. Immediate aid should be given to feed the people to get them in a state of mind to be able to comprehend more complex things. If they are going to understand population control and developmental aid they need to be in a sound state of mind. I think developmental aid should be given, but it has to be a continued effort to develop the area. To teach them how to follow in our footsteps, we didn't start out poor either. We need to educate them and teach them how to establish and maintain a solid government, trade system and how to effectively use their resources. I think it's okay to invest in this type of aid because it's similar to college. There would be no business people if the weren't trained in some way to be effective business leaders. We need to teach these countries with our expertise how to develop their economies so they can become self sufficient. Also, population control should be given to help slow the hungry mouths. This will help the effectiveness of developing and allow for less immediate aid to be given. If there are less mouths to feed then there is more resources and money to be given to those already alive.

My normative principal is a mix between Peter Singers and Onora O'Neill. I think that yes, we should do the action that has the overall best consequence; however, it's relative to the situation and is different for every scenario. It's up to us to evaluate the circumstances and decide what should be done since we are the ones with the power to help. So my overall normative principal is: Based on the situation we should try to choose the best overall outcome, but it's up to us to decide what the best outcome is. In relation to famine I think that any aid given is good, but we are not obligated to give it. If we can give it without moral sacrifice to ourselves, then yes we should do that, but we have the right, as the donator, to decide what to give, how much to give, when to give, or even if we should give at all. O'Neill belives that people have a right not to kill. Yes I believe this, however I don't think that by not helping the starving we are killing them. I think killing is playing a direct role in the killing. I don't think it's our duty to save the world.

In the case of the drowning boy, I think that yes, you should save the child, because a life as compared to your new shoes aren't comparable. And although, we are not killing him by not saving him it would be just as easy to help as to not help. I feel the same about famine. We aren't killing them by not helping, but the outcome would be better if we spared five bucks that really doesn't do us much good in terms of goods in this country.

Island story. I believe that you should land the plane with food on it if and only if you don't need the food to survive and the place where the food is going doesn't need the food. You aren't directly killing the people on the island by not stopping so if you want to keep going it isn't immoral. However, the outcome to stop is a good outcome in most cases I would say do it. As long as there is not great sacrifice to the original destination of the food and to you. If there is a significant sacrifice then it is up to you to evaluate the situation and