I take issue with two arguments that you gave arguing why it can't be the case that we are obligated to give to charity:Spidey wrote:Ok Jeff, lets make sure we understand each other…
The point you are referencing is what I think “you” want by setting the bar so high concerning charity, not the way “I” think it should be.
Your Argument 1: If we are obligated to give to charity, then we will always have to keep giving, since someone will always be in need.
Response: But this is not the case, e.g. even Singer, who has the most extreme position, says that you should only give until helping others does less good than helping yourself. So there is a point at which we should stop giving, even with Singer's extreme position.
Your argument 2: If we are obligated to give to charity, then most people would be immoral.
Response: No one would be perfect, but this would be the case anyways. But judging whether someone is moral or not requires a lot more consideration than whether they give to charity. So this would have little effect on whether most people are moral or not.
Even those people who still think that a person X can own another person Y still believe that there are limitations on what X can do to Y...flip wrote:Since he is the owner, he therefore has that right.