The moral permissibility of abortion and famine relief obligations

¶ … abortion is morally permissible.

The question of whether abortion is morally permissible is separate from the question of whether abortion should be legally permissible. Legal permissiveness doe not necessarily refer to the morality of the issue; an act can still be legal but not moral and an act can be illegal but moral. The argument that abortion is morally permissible is grounded in fact and logic, whereas the argument that abortion is not morally permissible is grounded in emotion and religion.

Abortion is morally permissible and in fact can be morally obligatory in some cases, as when a person has no interest in raising a child, or when the woman was raped. Abortion is also morally permissible because abortions are conducted before the fetus reaches the age of viability, when it could be considered a \"person.\" Abortion is morally permissible also because there is no logical reason why it should not be permissible. Abortion is morally permissible even when some people do not believe abortion is morally permissible, because it is the right of the pregnant woman to decide whether or not to have a baby. On the other hand, it is not morally permissible to force a woman to have a baby. Religious people do not have the right to impose their beliefs on people who are not religious.

Abortion is not morally permissible because a religious belief system dictates against abortion, and it is much more important to listen to religious beliefs than to reason and logic. It is also not morally permissible to allow people who are not religious to have abortions because their having abortions is morally offensive. Abortion is not morally permissible because when a person gets pregnant, she should carry the child to term no matter what, and in some cases it may be the woman\'s fault for getting pregnant. Abortion is not morally permissible because the fetus is a person. Abortion is not morally permissible because all life is sacred, except the lives of murderers and some animals that taste good. It is too difficult to imagine a nuanced world in which abortion can be morally permissible for some people and not for other people, which is why it is easier to claim that abortion is not morally permissible for all people.

B. Provides both argumentative sides to the issue as to whether famine relief from people in affluent countries to people in failed states is morally obligatory.

The argument of whether famine relief from people in affluent countries to people in failed states is an extension of the bystander effect case, in which people do tend to ignore the suffering of others even when they are in the position of offering or providing help. The person might feel that someone else will be in a better position to provide help, or that interference will be problematic. For example, a person might believe that their interference will cause resentment or even lead to undesirable consequences. Some people might even believe that helping people in need is interfering with their karma. However, many people believe that not helping when we can help is categorically immoral because it is akin to causing harm. Withholding help can be considered aiding and abetting suffering.

Famine relief is morally obligatory because people who have the power and ability to help those in need are always morally obliged to do so. People in affluent countries have more than enough, and their surplus wealth is often spent on frivolous things that neither alleviate suffering nor promote happiness. It would actually make more sense logically to donate money to people who need it the most, because at least that money would alleviate suffering. Just as it is immoral to stand by while a person is dying without offering any help, it is also immoral to refuse to help people who are suffering when it is within our power to do so. Furthermore, donating to people in failed states promotes universal values of compassion, kindness, and caring, thereby entrenching pro-social values and potentially making the world a better place for everyone.

Famine relief is a nice idea, but is not a moral obligation. People are free to do whatever they want with their money, because they earned their money either from their inheritance or from working. Giving out of a moral obligation is not motivated by kindness or compassion but by guilt and a sense of duty, which does nothing to eliminate the root cause of suffering. In fact, it is better to create the political and economic institutions that promote prosperity around the world than it is to offer short-term financial assistance.

C. Provide both argumentative sides to the issue as to whether animals should have rights.

Animals should have rights because they are sentient beings. Any creature with a central nervous system has the capacity to feel pain as well as pleasure. Hurting animals causes them pain, which is causing suffering, which is morally wrong. It does not matter if the pain is experienced by an animal or a human being because human beings are, after all, animals too. Human beings are not \"better\" than animals or more worthwhile. However, human beings have the power to reduce the suffering of animals by ensuring they have rights.