Argument: A number of global poverty relief agencies have programs that are proven to prevent suffering and death at ver

[answerhappygod]

Argument A Number Of Global Poverty Relief Agencies Have Programs That Are Proven To Prevent Suffering And Death At Ver 1 (94.92 KiB) Viewed 24 times

Argument: A number of global poverty relief agencies have programs that are proven to prevent suffering and death at very low cost. De-worming treatments for school children, for example, cost less than $1 per child per year. Programs that support the distribution and effective use of mosquito nets cost as little as $50 dollars per net. If you were to donate 1 percent of your income to programs like these, you would undoubtedly save lives and prevent serious suffering at very little cost to yourself. It is true that donating 1 percent of your income to effective relief agencies would require you to make some sacrifices--you might have to eat at restaurants less often or wait to upgrade your phone. But compared to suffering and death, these sacrifices are incredibly small. We all acknowledge that, in general, we have a moral obligation to prevent suffering and death when we can do so at little costs to ourselves. Since charitable giving does that it follows that we all have an obligation to donate 1 percent of our total income to effective relief organizations. Put the argument in standard form from Moral Principle. Then, identify premise 1 from the options below. If you were to donate 1 percent of your income to programs like these, you would undoubtedly save lives and prevent serious suffering at very little cost to yourself. We all have an obligation to donate 1 percent of our total income to effective relief organizations. De-worming treatments for school children, for example, cost less than $1 per child per year. We all acknowledge that, in general, we have a moral obligation to prevent suffering and death when we can do so at little costs to ourselves.