Arguments in Favor of Donation - Essay Example

An Argument Paper in Favor of DONATION

It is the moral responsibility of every human being to help those in need of help with everything they can, no matter how geographically distanced the needy lives are. However, many people have a different points of view regarding this notion. According to Peter Singer, some people argue that people should be allowed to follow their own beliefs regarding donating money as everyone has a different take on the issue (Singer 25). However, this can be a deceptive argument as allowing everyone to freely profess his or her beliefs might not bring good to society. For example, we do not allow students to cheat in exams or people to violate speed regulations just because they think it is a fun thing to do. There are laws that restrict such behavior which is considered moral relativism. Similarly, not donating to the needy can also be termed as moral relativism and must be discouraged.

Another moral obligation that most people agree to be saving a drowning child. It does not matter whether the drowning child is related to us or is our responsibility at all. All that matters is that a human being is in distress and it is our moral duty to save him even at the cost of sacrificing our own comfort or belongings. We just cannot shy away from the responsibility by saying that “he’s not my baby” or “I was not babysitting for him”. Similar is the case of donating a reasonable amount of money to the children who are striving to stay alive because of famine or hunger throughout the world. At this point, it should be clearly understood that it does not matter whether the children you are donating for are of the same country, religion, or cast. Similar to saving the drowning child who could be an American, a non-Christian, or even a migrant, what matters is that we have to help a human being in distress even if it means sacrificing our own belongings.  

People often say that they have worked hard for the money they have earned and it is their right to spend it on buying a new car, redecorating the house, or buying new clothes (Singer 26). However, what people do not understand is that it is not their right to spend money on the things they choose. If that be the case, government taxation would be an option and not a compulsion. Comparable to this is an example of a person who does not choose to donate to the needy and therefore exercises the right to choose a wrong attitude. In fact, such people might not be in a proper moral condition to feel the situation in which the needy are. Suitable sympathetic feelings for the needy can be experienced only after appropriate reflection and research which would enable people to determine the extent of help they can and should extend. This would not only facilitate righteous self-development but also enable individuals to live their lives as they deem fit. If a wealthy individual enjoys sunbathing at luxurious beach hotels or balls at casinos while millions of others are in dire need of some part of his wealth then it is morally wrong for him to live his life as per his choice; saying “I have earned the money and I have a right to spend it as I please”.

Some people also oppose the notion that it is our moral responsibility to help those in need by saying that although they have a responsibility towards those whom they have wronged, they do not have any responsibility towards those whom they have not wronged (Singer 28). This can be termed as an extreme view the fact that if this argument is accepted as reasonable, no charity would work for the jobless, the disabled, or the famine-stricken people. This also entails that help to the needy should also not be restricted to the boundaries of one’s neighborhood, city, or even country. Help should and must be extended to all without prejudice to boundaries in a manner that one is fulfilling a moral obligation.

Some people feel that the USA is already giving generously in terms of aid to underdeveloped nations, which is enough and there is no need to donate more (Singer 33). However, the fact is totally the opposite! According to the figures OECD released in 2006, the USA donated 18 cents per $100 of GNI which is much less than what other developed countries are donating (Singer 33). Take for example a person who sees a drowning child and waits for another child to fall into the pool to save both at the same time. Similarly, because there is so much poverty in the world that we cannot save every suffering human being does not justify our notion not to save some of them (Wellman 317).

The discussion on donations for the needy is not near its end however, the arguments in favor of donating prove that it is our moral duty to help those in need. It, however, is a plausible argument that donations in the form of cash or food should only be given in cases of extreme emergencies like earthquakes or famine otherwise they cause dependency. The notion of “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime” fits here perfectly (Smith 10). Donations should be given in such a form that they encourage the needy to earn their own money and sustain their own living.