# data[].attributes.headline
Response to the Forum chair (Question 3)

# data[].attributes.subject
Response to the Forum chair (Question 3)

# data[].attributes.body
I have the same view with the forum chair. From utilitarian point of view, it is immoral for people who is rich or having comfortable lives to further satisfy their needs like buying new clothes or eating a luxurious meal. However, I think it is unfair to those who are not poor and needy. For those people living in a rather stable and satisfactory environment, they still have their desires and needs to fulfill. If they sacrifice all they have,  they instead lose their opportunity to gain more happiness. Because every human being should have same human right, I believe this is not fair for people have better lives to sacrifice in an uni-directional way. It is either not a good phenomenon to the utilitarians as the total happiness may be difficult to increase.
Chung Cheuk Lam Natalie
23/10/2016

# data[].attributes.headline
Costs and Benefits (Response to forum chair Tsang I Mau Tim)

# data[].attributes.subject
Costs and Benefits (Response to forum chair Tsang I Mau Tim)

# data[].attributes.body
I think Tim has given an important factor of whether or not to donate money for charity. It is true that there are a lot of people who need our help, in which financial aids may be considered as the most easiest and direct way for the general public to help those in need. As we make donations, there are always sacrifices made as individuals will need to forgo their other desires. Although small amount of money may not solve the financial crisis of those developing countries in a short time, the act already set a ground for improvements of their living environment and resource allocation. As long as we have some extra money, we should try our best to give back to the society, I think that is something the younger generation should learn.

Siu Chi Ying Jenny
22th October, 2016

# data[].attributes.headline
Charity should not be limited by geographical location (response to Chung Cheuk Lam Natalie)

# data[].attributes.subject
Charity should not be limited by geographical location (response to Chung Cheuk Lam Natalie)

# data[].attributes.body
I also agree with Natalie's point that geographical consideration should not be a difficulty which hinders people from making donations. It is very common nowadays to reach the organisations in different means, like the Internet, booths in MTR or even dialing to the organisations. People can easily buy new clothes and luxurious products online, why not donation then?

Siu Chi Ying Jenny
22th October, 2016

# data[].attributes.headline
Response to forum chair (Tsang I Mau, Tim)'s response

# data[].attributes.subject
Response to forum chair (Tsang I Mau, Tim)'s response

# data[].attributes.body
I can see that you adapted Singer’s counter argument, “the traditional distinction between duty and charity cannot be drawn”, and that “giving money is regarded as an act of charity, it is not thought that there is anything wrong with not giving. The charitable man may be praised, but the man who is not charitable is not condemned. “ (p.235) with the aim of proving that the wealthy country does not have any obligation in providing support for the needy, and that donating money is a charity which shall be praised because more is done compared to our moral expectation. However, the fact that you later used Singer’s view that “To do so is not charitable or generous” is contradictory to your stand.

Despite of that, I cannot agree to you that donating money is an act of charity rather than duty. Being aware of the fact that if we do not donate the money, which are in a sense less life-depending to us, hundreds of people may die of hunger, therefore the ‘personal will’ and action of not donating the money is a kind of harmful negative agency in this case, where your inaction leads to someone’s death. That is why we are obligated to donate money in terms of justice and protecting humanity.

Angel Li Huiping
18/10/2016

# data[].attributes.headline
Response to forum chair (Tang Hoi Laam, Hanna)'s response 

# data[].attributes.subject
Response to forum chair (Tang Hoi Laam, Hanna)'s response 

# data[].attributes.body
I also agree your rationale behind that you agree richer countries should help out the poor countries, is under the circumstance that the richer country is wealthy enough to donate part of their food or clothes without causing shortage in the country. If a country only have resources barely to support the lives of its own people, it would not be obligational for them to sacrifice their recources, because they may need help help themselves. My idea that it is immoral to buy new clothes or to eat at an expensive restuarant, does not imply that they must starve or have no decent clothes to wear in order to give the money to the needy, but under the rationale that not eating at an expensive restaurant does not harm an individual much as hundred of humans dead, which makes us indirect murders of the needy.

Angel Li Huiping
18/10/2016

# data[].attributes.body
Famine is a serious problem in the third-world countries. People do not have enough food to maintain their lives.
From my point of view, the major cause is globalization. For those privileged countries such as the USA, they have much more power among the global. Take smartphone production as an example. Designers first make a draft of the product. Then, the companies buy raw materials at the lowest price and assemble the product in those poor countries as labours are cheap. The profit-maximization principle deteriorate the problem of famine. The local governments might corrupt with those entrepreneur and do not improve the environment of the workers. Therefore, I think affluent countries has the responsibility to help the starving needy in the poor countries as they are making their lives harder

Wong Wan In
18/10/2016

# data[].attributes.headline
Response to the Forum chair (Question 2)

# data[].attributes.subject
Response to the Forum chair (Question 2)

# data[].attributes.body
I support Singer's view and I also share similar view with the forum chair. I think developed countries have the obligation to help with poor countries in terms of monetary support and service. Thank you for the forum chair raising a good example (East Bengal), and there are other regions and countries that need helping hands like Syria, Iraq. As the people in poor countries lack power and knowledge to change their situations, external helps from foreign richer countries are necessary. The support from developed countries such as medical service and funding can help both the people and the countries, eventually lead to more stable countries and greater total happiness.

Besides, about the question how far do we need to help the poor, I agree with the forum chair. We need to help until we have a great loss and significant sacrifice that we cannot bear anymore. We need to concern our own needs and costs while we are helping the needy.The circumstance or limit to opt helping or not helping the needy is a personal issue. Some people contribute their entire life, endeavoring in the charities or helping, and they may think that they can endure the costs (family, career etc.) while some people cannot make this kind of sacrifice. Everyone may have different circumstance and we should respect other's choices.
Chung Cheuk Lam Natalie
18/10/2016

# data[].attributes.headline
Response to the Forum chair (Question 1)

# data[].attributes.subject
Response to the Forum chair (Question 1)

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Singer's view that the geographical or emotional proximity are irrelevant to morality. We should help needy whenever and wherever we are. I think Singer's Famine Relief is really good for us to reflect our attitudes towards the famine and poverty problems. It provides another view for people to see the problem and somehow encourages people to make more donations or put more effort on these issues.
Chung Cheuk Lam Natalie
18/10/2016

# data[].attributes.body
I do not agree with Angel's position of the affluent is obligating to help the poor. First, the traditional distinction between duty and charity cannot be drawn. Giving money to UNICEF is regarded as an act of charity in our society. The bodies which collect money are known as "charities." These organizations see themselves in this way - if you send them a check, you will be thanked for your "generosity." Because giving money is regarded as an act of charity, it is not thought that there is anything wrong with not giving. The charitable man may be praised, but the man who is not charitable is not condemned.
However, people do not feel in any way ashamed or guilty about spending money on new clothes or a new car instead of giving it to famine relief. When we buy new clothes not to keep ourselves warm but to look "well-dressed" we are not providing for any important need. We would not be sacrificing anything significant if we were to continue to wear our old clothes, and give the money to famine relief. By doing so, we would be preventing another person from starving. To do so is not charitable, or generous. Nor is it the kind of act which philosophers and theologians have called "supererogatory" - an act which it would be good to do, but not wrong not to do. On the contrary, we ought to give the money away, and it is wrong not to do so.
So donation should not be viewed as obligation, it should be done upon personal will.

Tsang I Mau, Tim
17/10/2016

# data[].attributes.body
Viewing from the utilitarian perspective, it is our duty to provide assistance to people in need, no matter it is financial assistance to a poor country or just simply giving a helping hand to disabled people in our daily life. I particularly agree with the forum chair's point in stating that the total happiness within a community is the crucial factor in determining whether or not to help those in need.

This crucial factor also reminds us of the fundamental meaning of 'morality', that every decision we made should be based on the society as a whole, instead of single individuals. Speaking of the issue whether people in affluent countries sacrifice to help the starving needy in poor countries, I personally think that it is necessary and I see no point that the affluent countries should not be liable to help the 'victims'.

Every year, the Americans are wasting food which accounts for $165 billion. Besides, the country also throws uneaten food to landfills and accumulated to a large portion of the country's methane emissions. While the US is wasting food, people in developing countries do not even have enough, or even they do not have food for prolonged period.
This can be seen as the result of selfishness, that people in the better-off countries do not see the whole world in an utilitarian perspective, thus they overlook the importance of the total happiness, instead they consider solely their personal wills and rights, that is to waste things that should be better allocated to those in need.

I think it is not wrong to buy new clothes and eat at expensive restaurant in all circumstances. However, it all depends on the reason of doing so. Therefore it is important for us to categorize the underlying meanings of doing things. For instance, I would say it is permissible to buy new clothes if you do not have any clothes in your wardrobe, as buying new clothes become a fundamental need -- to cover your body. However, if you already have a collection of clothes, it is then morally wrong to buy some more new clothes, as the money for buying could then be saved in order to help people in need, people who need those amount of money to survive.

Siu Chi Ying
18/10/2016

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Angel that she suggested richer nations should help the poorer ones since a few thousand dollars you sacrifice can save hundreds of lives, the developed countries are capable to donate part of their resources without creating a lack of food, daily commodities. This point is actually based on the assumption that the richer nations has enough resources that the assistance to the poorer nations would not affect themselves. In contrast, if the assistance would create a burden to the richer nations, it might not be necessary for them to provide support to the poorer nations

Tang Hoi Laam, Hanna
17/10/2016

# data[].attributes.body
Some people may think that it is too demanding if we are to obligate to the moral value and sacrifice our needs of luxuries and cosmetics in order to help the starving needy in poor countries, which neglects our natural human desire or even basic needs as a human. However, I think that we should have a clear distinction between primary needs and what not. For example, the new Iphone 7 has launched and you want to have a more updated version of your phone, although the updated program may increase your convenience to different applications, which you may think you really 'need' it, but in fact even without the new phone, you can still perform basic functions using your present phone, you could still call or Whatsapp your friends, serve the Internet, take photo and listen to music. There is no direct harm to your normal life or affect your acquisition of basic needs.

On the other hand, the few thousand dollars you sacrifice can save hundreds of life, by buying the needy in poor countries some food, medicine, or simply clean water. As we all know the most primary needs of humans are to survive. Therefore, a larger consequence and harm is be caused to the needy in poor countries without that sum of money, which is the death of hundreds of people. In order to maximize the total welfare, it is morally correct and crucial for us to make this kind of small sacrifices.

I do not agree to the forum chair in any sense that the total happiness would reduce if people from the rich country donates a little sum of money to the poor countries. The overall benefit will actually increase, because if we think carefully, the benefit of millions of human lives can overweight the loss which as just small amount of money everyone are more than capable to contribute.
Angel Li Huiping
15/10/2016

# data[].attributes.body
1. Why does Singer think we ought to help the starving needy in poor countries? What is his argument?

Singer first announces that suffering caused by a lack of the most basic of resources is bad. Secondly, he maintains that if it is the case that we can prevent some bad from happening, without thereby giving up something of comparable moral importance, we are morally obligated to do so. These two assumptions are the foundation upon which he draws the conclusion that most individuals have a very strong moral obligation to relieve famine. After all, giving a great deal of money to aid organizations is hardly comparable to the enormous amount of suffering that the money will offset. For example if we are walking past a pond and see a child drowning in it, we ought to wade in and pull the child out. This may ruin the clothes but that would be insignificant compare to the death of the child. Singer believes that we could help without thereby giving up anything of significant moral importance. In other words, we can reduce avoidable death and suffering by giving to famine relief etc. and the cost of doing so is a morally insignificant reduction in our standard of living .

In addition Singer also proposes that geographical or emotional proximity are irrelevant to morality. It suggests that whether or not I have a duty to aid someone should not be influenced by features concerning how far away I am from that person, either physically or emotionally.

2. Do you agree with Singer? On your view, how far should people in the affluent countries sacrifice to help the starving needy in poor countries?

I agree with Singer that the richer nations are ought to help nations like the East Bengal, facing with serious problems such as the lack of food, shelter and medical care. In my point of view, the stand of this argument is depend on whether you value the benefit of the whole collective the most important consideration or you think that the interest of one’s self is the most important. To me, the benefit of the whole collective always come first. This is why morality exists. This is why people set up standards of virtue. Having to be regarded as noble, mighty and virtuous can achieve the purpose of keeping people in line, obeying laws which are aimed to protect human’s safety and properties, and eventually maintaining the social order. Realistically, if everyone, or most of us, are not willing to give a helping hand to the needy, even if we can do so without having to bear a heavy cost, the general benefit of the whole collective will be reduced. In the case of the famine in East Bengal, imagine the waste around the globe produced by numerous wealthy countries, the richer nations are definitely capable of supplying the countries which are in difficult situations with basic materials and food.

If richer nations are willing provide East Bengal with basic needs, or even assist them to address the roots of the problems such as economic problems, education system and wars, more people in the world would become safe, able to enjoy their life and even have the ability to contribute to one’s country or the world. However such assumption is only based on the condition that the richer nations could help the poorer ones without suffering from another problem, which is emerged due to the assistance to the poor nations. It is of its own choice whether to help or not if the outcome of the assistance will lead to serious sacrifice or predicament of the country because if the wealthy nations are forced to help the poorer ones, neglecting its own benefits and capability, it turns out to be a harm to people in the wealthy nation in general, failing to reduce the average suffer of the world.

3. From the utilitarian point of view, is it always immoral for us to buy new clothes or to eat at expensive restaurant?

Enjoying relatively luxurious entertainment is not moral from the utilitarian perspective. Total happiness is the biggest concern for Utilitarianism. Purchasing new clothes or dinning at expensive restaurant are examples which people do to promote their quality of life. Spending disposal money on luxuries can be a way for people to relax and enjoy their lives, and it generates happiness for them.

According to Singer, it is an immoral action because it equals not giving enough money to the starving needy. However, in utilitarian point of view, if considering spending disposal money on unnecessary is immoral, then it might lower the level of happiness of large group of people, since buying new clothes or eating at expensive restaurants has become the lifestyle of citizens who live in a developed country. Therefore, it will be against the principle of utilitarianism, if it is an immoral act. Donating money to those who are in need is obviously a good act but it does not mean it can maximize the total utility. In this case, if it asks people to scarifies their right to enjoy their lives based on their own preference to help others, then it opposes the belief of utilitarianism. Although acting the way Singer suggests might increase the level of happiness in less developed countries, it can decrease the total happiness in the world.