Problem
Think of Peter Singer's drowning child case. This is a prime example of a situation in which it would be possible to help someone at very low cost to oneself. Jan Narveson argues that it is morally good, but not morally required, to help people in bad circumstances when we can do so at very low cost to ourselves. In the case of the drowning child, Narveson's position implies that we are not morally required to help the drowning child, even though it would be very good if we did so. Does this make sense - that there can be very morally good actions that require us to sacrifice very little that we are not required to do? Why or why not?
Reading of :
Jan Narveson - "Feeding the Hungry"
Peter Singer, "The Singer Solution to World Poverty".