# data[].attributes.body
he principe of utilitarianism is maximizing the total utility.Therefore, I believe there can be many interpretations. it can be immoral if we are solely looking at the increase of the worldwide survival rate. However, your opinion sees this from a new perspective which promotes that everyone has their own duties. In some situations, an amount of money has to be spent in order to sustain relationships with others, or else it might affect the utility of the ones who are close to you. For example, should we buy our children a birthday cake on their birthday? According to Confucian, love is graded. We should love our family first, then our neighbours, and finally strangers. In this perspective, everyone should  fulfill their own duties before helping others. Since it will decrease the total utility, if people fail to sustain relationships and accomplish their own duty. Therefore, it is not immoral to live the lifestyle one's desire.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with the forum chair's opinion. The poor countries are usually belong the third world. Since that the third world are always affected by diseases, wars,  natural disasters, etc. Therefore, the poor countries are difficult to develop. But the affluent countries are already developed. And people in the affluent countries live stable. So I think they should help the poor countries people,  if they do not need to afraid and worry about food,  water, home, and clothes.

And also I feel the same way with chair. If we want to save more life in the world, we should not do something luxuriously. We can save our money to donate to the poor countries people who do not have enough food, water, clothes, etc, to survive. Maybe we can just donate few dollar per month, it is enough to them, if everyone from the affluent countries do it.

Leung Ho Yiu

# data[].attributes.body
I do think the rich people should help the poor people. It is because of humanity. Many poor people in the third-world are suffering from diseases, starve, and war. They are not only poor, but also in danger in every second. Moreover, many of us do not know that we are depriving of poor people's resources. Whenever we buy coffee, furniture, pork, etc, they are suffering because the international companies pay them low wage and they have to help the companies to make products.
Furthermore, when we are making pollution, we are not the only people affected, the pollution would spread to all over the world causing global warming, rise in sea level..., the global village is suffering especially when we are enjoying luxurious.
Even to utilitarian, the impacts caused by them,  are not acceptable. Because the impacts could be starving, or even killing.
Cheung Ho Hin

# data[].attributes.body
I think Yau Yuen Yee has proposed a convincing point to us which is ''one who does more work will get more pay''. If everyone who has surplus money is obligated to donate it to the poor, then it will significantly lower his/her motivation to work harder. They may simply earn just enough for their living. Then, the whole society will be in a rut and lose competitiveness. At the same time, the poor will just sit there with folding arms and waiting for the donations. They will also lose motivation to make an effort as someone's gonna help anyway. The system of the society will then become out of order. After all, genuine personal willing is the key when it comes to help and charity and donation. If we do it because we are obligated or because there's rule, then the whole thing will simply become meaningless.

Tsang I Mau, Tim
17/10/2016

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with the idea of Yau Yuen Yee. The resources of the richer nations might be exploited due to the sacrifice to the poorer ones. Therefore, our group had suggested that the richer nations are only obligated to assist the poor nations when te yare managed to do so. For example, there are some NGOs organizing schemes that donors only have to donate around $7 HK dollars a day to sponsor a third-world child’s daily expenditure. The amount $7 HK dollars is affordable to many people in the developed nations like Japan, Hong Kong, UK, etc. By not excessively transferring its own nation’s resources to the poor nations, the richer one are able and have the ability to do so.

Tang Hoi Laam, Hanna
17/10/2016

# data[].attributes.headline
Hi everyone. I am the teaching assistant who monitors and evaluates your discussions. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Hi everyone. I am the teaching assistant who monitors and evaluates your discussions. 

# data[].attributes.body
1. I strongly recommend that you should give your  comment before the deadline.

2. It seems to be appealing that helping behavior is intuitively praising and morally justifiable. Considering the example Singer given, is it a moral obligation you ought to be and can fulfill easily? In the line of that example, would it be reasonable, based on the same intention and condition, to help the starvation?

3. For those who are interested in this topic, two books are worth for your attention.
i) 'The Bottom Billion' by Paul Collier,
ii) 'Development As Freedom' by Amartya Sen.

Thank you.

# data[].attributes.body
I don't think it is reasonable to force the richer nations to help the poor countries. Although the poor countries maybe improved by the assiting of medical, food or education from affluent countries, as well as ease the problem of poverty, it will scarify the property of the citizen. When a country is going to expense with helping other poor nations, their own resources which provide to local country will be reduced. Singer believes that people could help if the cost is a morally insignificant reduction in our standard of living, however everyone's belief and value are different. Let's take an example, if there was a boy who asking for money along the street and the people who pass through may have different concern, maybe someone is going to have a buffet tonight with an important person, he would not have enough money for dating if he give money to him, the dating maybe affect his life or other important reason we don't know, therefore he would think the cost of giving money is greater than the cost of letting the boy away. It showed that the we cannot force anyone to help others as each of them have their own value . On the other hand, the rich country can give some education to citizen and promote charity instead of forcing them to do it but without any information about poor countries in their mind.
Besides, people have their private property, even the rich guys, they use their own effort and time to earn money, no one can control the way they use. If the money they earned forced to give the poor countries then who are willing to contribute the society and work? everyone just sit here and waiting for the help from other country.

Yau Yuen Yee
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. However, if the money is spent to save the needy, it can increase the survival rate.

According to Singer, it is an immoral action because it equals not giving enough money to the starving needy. The utilitarianism will agree with this opinion, since this action can maximize the utility. 5 billions people approximately live in absolute poverty nowadays, and every 3.6 second there is someone who is dead because of hunger. Giving up a luxurious lifestyle is utterly an insignificant cost comparing to letting people die of hunger.If people are willing to change their lifestyle and donate the money, a large population can be saved. Therefore, owing to the principle of Utilitarianism, it will be immoral to live an expensive lifestyle.