After reading ”Feeding the Hungry“ by [an Narveson, respond to the following questions concerning
charity and justice located at the end of the chapter. Your response to each question should be 100
to 300 words in length. Narveson mentions that there are two ways to argue that it is unjust to let
others starve to death. What are they? How does he respond to each? Do you think his response is
successful? Why or why not? Under what conditions does Narveson think we are obligated to give to
those in need? When does he think it is virtuous to give to those in need? How do facts about the
real world afiect our obligations and virtues? Do you find his view plausible? Why or why not?
Explain Narveson’s distinction between justice and charity. When is starvation a matter of justice 5
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? Explain what Narveson
calls “the ethics of the hair shirt” Why does he think this view is mistaken? Explain one way the hair
shirt ethicist might respond. Do you think the response is successful? Why or why not? Explain the
“liberty proponent” response to the distinction between starving and allowing to starve. According
to the liberty proponent to what extent is morality up to each individual? Do you find this
problematic? Why or why not? [Mo52]