Question

Explain Narveson’s distinction between justice and charity. When is starvation a matter of justice and when is it a matter of charity? Apply this distinction to another moral issue. Do you think the distinction yields plausible results regarding your issue? Why or why not?

Answer 1

Narveson elaborated and explained the differences between the charity and justice. A Narveson state justice on those kinds of matters was very necessary and on the other hand charity on those things are comes from caring sense and emotionally driven things. If we identify feeding the hungry as a matter of justice then that identifies it as an obligation we must manage. Justice is defined as things we are more so forced to do, where our actions can be constrained by others in order to ensure our performance. We would be compelled to determine an adequate minimum level of nutrition and instigate a legal framework that ensured every person had access to that minimum amount of food each day. If we identify feeding the hungry as a matter of charity then we could help out our fellow man if we had a mind to, but no one could compel us to do so. Charity comes from the heart, caring an emotionally tinged desire to benefit other people just because they need it. If we used Narveson distinction between justice and charity for another moral issue, for instance telling the truth, then one might see that it does not hold up for real world usage. There are instances where telling the truth can be compelled, as in a court of law for instance, but there are many other instances where telling the truth is a matter that might be done if one is of that mind, but isn’t necessary. Narveson even points out that charity can only be defined as he does if motive is separated from action. In which case, you are now comparing apples to firetrucks, for how can you compel motive at all.