Explore this topic by introducing and assessing Singer’s* and O’Neill’s respective positions and arguments. You must take a position about who has the most convincing argument and explain why you think so.
These questions must be answered in the essay:
1) Should we give to famine relief? If yes, why? If no, why?
2) What are we morally obliged to do in such a case?
3) What is the best argument to sustain that we are morally obliged to do x, assuming we are obliged to do x? Is the best argument utilitarian or Kantian?
4) Is charity a supererogatory act or an obligatory act?
The two readings we are using are Singer’s Famine, Affluence and Morality and O’Neill’s Kantian Approaches to Some Famine Problems, but outside sources are also encouraged (BUT NO QUOTATIONS ALLOWED IN THE ESSAY FROM ANY SOURCE, paraphrasing is allowed however but you must add the author and the page number)
You could divide things sharply, by first introducing the argument of the philosopher A, and then introducing the argument of the philosopher B. However, your paper should at least have two main sections. The first section should be more descriptive, in the sense that it is in this section that you will explain what philosophers A and B are saying about the topic X. The second section should be your assessment of the arguments of philosophers A and B.
No paragraph should be longer than a page
The difference between one section and another should be made clear by the use of titles.
– No less than 6 pages! no more than 8 pages!
– You have to include all the references used to write your paper in a bibliography (i.e. you have to do a bibliography).
– You have to write both an introduction and a conclusion.
– Your paper must be written entirely in your own words. No quotations are allowed.
I’ve attached the Oneill and Singer readings, along with handouts that outline the main ideas of the reading.