Student ID: 4314752
Would you be a morally better person if you refused to buy your friend a
birthday present and instead gave the money to charity? In arguing for your
stance include a response to at least one possible objection to it.
The action of donating to charity is a commonly known as an act of great compassion, but how
valid really is this presumption? In this essay, I will discuss the moral dilemma associated with
giving to those in need versus giving to loved ones and those we are closest with.
Probably, most would agree that donating to charity as opposed to giving to a friend on their
birthday would be the ‘morally better’ thing to do. Of course, this assumes the friend is more
financially stable generally better off than the victims of poverty and other situations of great
distress supported by the charity. This assumed, we would believe this is morally better thing to
do due to the fact it helps a greater cause: the birthday present is not essential for the survival
of the friend whereas survival materials for example supplied by a donation of money to the
charity could be. Taking into account ‘morals’ it would be ‘morally better’ to better a person’s
chances of survival if you are able to do that. We can refer to Singers argument here which
states “If we can prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything
of comparable moral importance, we ought to do it.” The birthday present is presumably of no
comparable importance to the survival materials supplied by the charity.
A common idea, is the distance argument which I feel is definitely applicable here. It questions
why we feel a greater demand to aid suffering that is in our vicinity where we can physically
witness it, when it is quite possible the suffering we know of elsewhere and further away is of
equal extremity if not worse. Perhaps this is due to the fact that we will have guilt literally
staring us in the face if we allow ourselves to watch the suffering happening near us and not do
anything. It is far easier to forget about the suffering we cannot see, and therefore forget our
guilt in not doing anything to help. Giving money to charity as opposed to buying a birthday
present for a friend would be helping the worst suffering despite the fact that we cannot see it
and overcoming our probable desire to take the easy route ignore something were never going
to have to face our guilt for because it is likely something we will never actually come into
physical contact with.
Furthermore, it is important to consider ‘collective responsibility’ when addressing this moral
dilemma. Although it is not one person’s responsibility alone to solve poverty and other
resulting issues across the world, if we are in a position where we are able to contribute in
some way, the argument states it is our responsibility to do so. This is due to the fact that
although one person is not capable of solving this issue alone, it is their responsibility to
contribute in some way because each small contribution will eventually allow the goal to be
achieved, no matter what the circumstance may be.
It should also not be overlooked that we often have a sense of ingrained moral impartiality
towards those we are closest to, meaning that because we know the person, we feel a stronger
Would you be a morally better person if you refused to buy your friend a
birthday present and instead gave the money to charity? In arguing for your
stance include a response to at least one possible objection to it.
The action of donating to charity is a commonly known as an act of great compassion, but how
valid really is this presumption? In this essay, I will discuss the moral dilemma associated with
giving to those in need versus giving to loved ones and those we are closest with.
Probably, most would agree that donating to charity as opposed to giving to a friend on their
birthday would be the ‘morally better’ thing to do. Of course, this assumes the friend is more
financially stable generally better off than the victims of poverty and other situations of great
distress supported by the charity. This assumed, we would believe this is morally better thing to
do due to the fact it helps a greater cause: the birthday present is not essential for the survival
of the friend whereas survival materials for example supplied by a donation of money to the
charity could be. Taking into account ‘morals’ it would be ‘morally better’ to better a person’s
chances of survival if you are able to do that. We can refer to Singers argument here which
states “If we can prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything
of comparable moral importance, we ought to do it.” The birthday present is presumably of no
comparable importance to the survival materials supplied by the charity.
A common idea, is the distance argument which I feel is definitely applicable here. It questions
why we feel a greater demand to aid suffering that is in our vicinity where we can physically
witness it, when it is quite possible the suffering we know of elsewhere and further away is of
equal extremity if not worse. Perhaps this is due to the fact that we will have guilt literally
staring us in the face if we allow ourselves to watch the suffering happening near us and not do
anything. It is far easier to forget about the suffering we cannot see, and therefore forget our
guilt in not doing anything to help. Giving money to charity as opposed to buying a birthday
present for a friend would be helping the worst suffering despite the fact that we cannot see it
and overcoming our probable desire to take the easy route ignore something were never going
to have to face our guilt for because it is likely something we will never actually come into
physical contact with.
Furthermore, it is important to consider ‘collective responsibility’ when addressing this moral
dilemma. Although it is not one person’s responsibility alone to solve poverty and other
resulting issues across the world, if we are in a position where we are able to contribute in
some way, the argument states it is our responsibility to do so. This is due to the fact that
although one person is not capable of solving this issue alone, it is their responsibility to
contribute in some way because each small contribution will eventually allow the goal to be
achieved, no matter what the circumstance may be.
It should also not be overlooked that we often have a sense of ingrained moral impartiality
towards those we are closest to, meaning that because we know the person, we feel a stronger
