I would like to talk about some arguments Jan Narveson raised in his article Feeding the Hungry. In his article, Narveson claimed that the action of feeding the hunger is charity instead of justice. He believed that we cannot forcibly ask people to provide help to those who hold no responsibility. Charity, as a virtue of good, is an optional behavior according to Narveson. If someone has a good hard and is willing to help, then he has a good virtue. However, it is not morally wrong about this person not offering help because he didn’t cause hunger.
I would like to argue Narveson’s claim by the example of colonialism. In Narveson’s article, he raised a question to the situation, who leads them to starve. According to his observation, since he didn’t rob or did anything wrong that caused hunger, then he is free from the obligation to help. However, this conclusion only exists in the short term. Yes, at this moment he is not the cause of hunger. However, this connection may not be valid if we view it long term. Nowadays, many western countries’ stable economic and social status is constructed on their colonialization in other countries. The original capital and labor are not eared by the bare hand. Then, as the posterity who benefits from their ancestor’s immoral action, I don’t think anyone can escape from the obligation to pay back to the starving people who are the victim of colonialism.