It is Good to Feed the Children
The statement “feed a man a fish and you feed for a day” holds some truth as it points out that man should be responsible for his own needs. In the case of hungry children around the world, the statement still holds some truth as parents are ought to be responsible for their own families needs. Parents should be responsible to their children to nourish them, to protect them and care for them, to educate them, and to bring them in the society as well rounded individual with strong ethical and moral values.
Of course these are the ideal concept, which in reality, too many families are far from fulfilling; although there are some who not only enjoy their family but is also meeting their basic needs. However, it cannot be denied that all over the world there millions of families living on less than one dollar a day. According to an article published by NetAid entitled Global Poverty there are over one billion people living in extreme poverty who are living on less than one dollar a day (Sachs, Jeffrey, 2005). Because of extreme poverty millions of children are starving and dying every day not because their parents abandoned their kids but because they were simply incapacitated by the lack of opportunity. It is a fact that in our society, poor people are both socially marginalized and socially invisible. Feeding starving children therefore is a social burden that every one of us must participate in order to fulfill our moral obligations to our society.
I would say that concerning the theories of morality, I stand as a moral objectivist. Moral objectivism has been defined as the position that particular acts are objectively right or wrong, independent of human opinion. Moral objectivist is being ethical, and moral objectivism is simply a view that there is an objective fact or truth of the matter even if the given action is action is morally right or wrong. I believed that there are moral judgments that are objectively true or false and that these judgments are true or false in spite of the beliefs or feelings of any particular person or group about them.
Thus, feeding the starving children is morally objective regardless of what others would reason out. It can be argued that it is the responsibility of the parents to provide for their children and the government must government should also take care of the poor and starving people, and excuse one our selves from this social obligation, but this reasoning is merely moral subjectivity. It will be always right to help those who are in need much more to help feed the starving and dying children because of extreme poverty. Moral objectivity is an ethical judgment of certain issues or acts. That is, it concerns the basic facts or truth.
In contrast, the moral Scepticism’s (a state of doubt or indecisiveness in the face of mutually differing statements) argument that we cannot know that there are moral truths is just the same arguments, as we cannot know that there is God. The moral Scepticist denies that there is indeed morality and held that there is really nothing that limits to what we can and cannot do. Adherents of this philosophical view also held moral limitations are merely invented by those who run the society. I cannot imagine what our society would look like if we put away morality of our society. I can only imagine a society that has no regard what to is right or what is wrong. A human society, which is comparable to a zoo as what made man distinct from animals is morality. It is what makes a man a civilized creature, cultured, and humane.
Net Aid “Global poverty” 1999-2007
Moral Objectivism, Modified march, 2008
Objections to the Moral Argument 2004
Classic Encyclopedia, “Scepticism” Modified 2006