In the article Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Michael Slote (2007) contends that rich people have a moral obligation to contribute more to charities. Slote thinks that when individuals have the capacity to inhibit something awful from occurring without inflicting suffering on themselves and others, they have a moral imperative to do it. He contends that individuals with money have a moral obligation to assist those who lack basic necessities and live in poverty. This applies on a worldwide scale, as wealthy nations must participate in the abolition of suffering in other underdeveloped countries. As a result, even long-distance strangers bear a moral obligation. I agree with the author’s point of view since it entails an internal behavioral change to conceal a bigger outward one with far-reaching implications.
He creates an imagined scenario in which a youngster drowns in a pond. A person going by the pond must go and assist the youngster, even if it means getting wet, losing clothes, and so on. It becomes their moral responsibility to help. As a principle, he considers that ethically good behavior must entail the well-being of the highest number of individuals and that as long as people remain poor, they cannot live in a bubble of being acceptable. Surplus prosperity for a few individuals, while others suffer in the same world, is unjust. Slote’s conclusion must be accepted since he offers a compelling argument. Simultaneously, the West has been roundly chastised for its wasteful attitude toward resources, despite the fact that a sizable portion of the globe lacks bare essentials. Giving without expecting anything in return is rational and ethical, as it demonstrates the humanitarian touch required to alleviate the problem of global poverty, according to his argument for more deserved donations.
Reference
Slote, M. (2007). Famine, affluence, and virtue.