Peter Singer is your quintessential utilitarian philosopher. His theories are tightly strung and often controversial. He is willing to defend damn near anything if the net result is an increased amount of happiness for all parties involved—a chip right off the old block, the block being none other than J.S. Mill. Singer makes a very interesting and perhaps radical claim regarding moral responsibility. He asserts that it is our moral duty to help others whenever we are able to do so without significant harm to ourselves. It is not necessarily this exact claim that I wish to address here, instead I would rather get to the root of the issue. Is there such thing as moral obligation? In other words, should certain actions be morally obligatory? We must walk this road, as always, with intense skepticism.
There is an important distinction we must make before we continue, between morally obligatory actions and morally supererogatory actions. The former are actions which are absolutely necessary to maintain moral goodness, and the latter is an action that we consider morally good, but not necessary. For example, we may consider somebody running into a burning building and rescuing a kitten a supererogatory action, because we would certainly think it a benevolent act; however, if the person did not save the kitten, we would not have faulted him for it.
This investigation regards obligatory actions—those which are supposedly necessary—such as those which Singer imposes.
Let us look at the following example.
I am watching television and one of those heartfelt ‘Save a Child’ commercial comes on. Apparently I can support a child for just twenty cents a day, or some comparable figure. Essentially, I can save a life with absolutely no harm to myself. All I have to do is call the number and give my credit card (assume the organization is not full of con artists).
I think we can be quite certain that donating the money is a supererogatory act; however, am I morally obliged to do so? Must I call this number in order to maintain moral goodness? I must honor Pyrrho, and suggest that the answer is no.
While I fervently advocate charity of all types (see On Philanthropy, by Veronika Green), I have a hard time considering charity, or any other action, morally obligatory. I find it difficult to assert that any action is morally necessary or necessary in any way. This seems far too restrictive and arbitrary. We can not impose one man’s moral compass on another man’s.
Subjectivity reigns on high, when objectivity hides its face.
5.20.2005
moral obligation or a lack thereof
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
To find the answers we are looking for we often need to ask somewhat different questions. Perhaps the question should be what is obligatory? Who decides what is obligatory and why? I think it is meaningless to try to figure out whether something is obligatory morally or otherwise until you can decide on some fundamental things first. What makes you good? Is your good the same as my good and so on…
I personally think that it is relatively useless talking about something being morally obligatory. It is much more practical to try to figure out what is the “right” thing to do...
I am sorry, I am not sure why it posted my comment as “Unknown”…
A nice essay, Albert. Very well done.
Ricky,
In your purse-snatcher example, would helping prevent the robbery be a supererogatory act or an obligatory act? Otherwise said, if a person does not attempt to aid the victim, are they necessarily morally culpable?
Ricky,
Let us say. there is a starving child 10 meters away from you, child (a). Also, let us say that there is a starving child somewhere in another country, child (b). You may feel emotionally more compelled to aid child (a), however is there really any rational difference between child (a) and (b) in terms of our obligation (if there be such a thing) to them?
Does distance matter?
People interested in moral theory won't get around reading Kant, and thereby know that what we're talking about here is the difference between perfect and imperfect duties. Perfect duties typically obligate to avoid actions (do not kill, do not steal). Imperfect duties usually incline to take actions (help others), but what sets them apart from perfect duties is that they are nice when followed, but not necessarily binding. Singer is really just giving these new names, which is quite idiotic, but typical of the academic ego.
The only thing he adds is the "harm to one's self" principle, which is not utilitarian (because that would be a weighing of benefits, i.e., does the benefit to the other outweigh my harm). So we continue to see people who would like to fashion themselves "utilitarians" bringing forth arguments completely out of line with that tradition of ethical reasoning.
The starving children of the Ethiopian famine or the bodies recovered from the latest Monsoon flood in India may arouse great feelings of campassion and the desire to help, but seeing your neighbors child get hit by car will cause you to spring to action. You'll call 911 and go to the aid of the child until help arrives.
Moral obligation is pretty much limited to your immediate circle of neighbors, friends and family. Your tribe, so to speak. These are also the people who have a moral obligation to come to your aid when necessary.
An exception is emergency personnel who have been trained to aid people in distress. It is implicit in their training that they are morally obligated to render aid where needed even when not on duty.
Some years ago the Legislature had to pass the "Good Samaritan Law" to protect physicians and nurses from mal-practice suits stemming from emergency aid delivered under less than optimum conditions. (Let no good deed go unpunished.)
In short, you my feel great compassion and desire to help all the unfortunate people of the world but you have a moral obligation to take care of your own.
Dinotoo
Perhaps we shouldn't look at society as a whole. I think we should look at each person individually. In my opinion moral obligation should be based off of personal conviction. If a person feels like they ought to be helping or serving another, then they are morally obligated to do so. If a person does not feel the conviction to help another, they are not obligated to. Keep in mind that conviction can come from a person's beliefs, religion, or lack thereof.
I checked in with my friend Webster on the subject of morality. He said:
"Morality; Implied conformity with generally accepted standards of rightness in conduct (see ethical)"
There can be morality without compassion. Morality is how we are seen by our community. Compassion is how we see ourselves. Ones religion has little bearing on either.
Maybe you felt no compassion for the kid who had been hit by a car. He broke your window last week and besides, he has a foul mouth, but what would your community think if you just stood by and watched him bleed to death and did nothing? Moral obligation to the community is the basic motivation here.
When someone runs into a burning building to save a neighbors children, that is compassion. That kind of heroic goes far beyond moral obligation, and is fueled by adreneline
The 10:05 posting by Anonymous was actually an addendum to the 3:35 posting by Dinotoo.
I inadvertently hit the wrong button when I sent.
No matter what our motivation, let's just continue to help each other whenever it is needed.
Dinotoo
I realized the fallacy of my argument as I re-read it after posting. However, it was correct for me. We do, indeed, each have our own morality. This is the one I am comfortable with.
The real problem is semantics. Our language does not provide the precise wording we need to express the nuances of moral obligation. We are using a kind of "one size fits all" term to express an infinite number of ideas.
I am a very literal person, uncomfortable with abstract concepts, so must withdraw from the game. I enjoyed the exercise very much, but concede to you. I will be honing my adjectives for the round.
Dinotoo
Eriatlov, I rescind my concession of the game. I’m quite new to critical thinking, but my mind keeps working on the problem when I try to walk away. How’s this?
My statement: “Moral obligation is pretty much confined to your neighbors, friends and immediate family”
I will reword it. “My moral obligation is pretty much confined to my neighbors, friends and immediate family.” Let us call it Tribal Obligation or Community Obligation I feel lesser obligation to the welfare of those in the next town, state, or country. This does not mean I have no compassion for their suffering, it means if I can’t see it first hand, touch it, smell it, it is hearsay. If I am not a witness, even though I am quite sure it is real suffering, I do not have the visceral reaction that I would have if seen in person. As distances increase, intensity of emotions decrease to the point of abstraction. By the same token, the number of victims will dilute my feelings of compassion for the individual victim. I cannot weep any more tears for 100,000 than I can for one. Your theoretical starving child in another land is just as important as the one hit by a car in front of my house, but not as important to me at that moment. I would be of no help to anyone if I were overcome by the sorrows of all humanity.
Dinotoo
eriatlov, let's try it again.
I will reword it again. “My moral obligation is pretty much confined to my neighbors, friends and immediate family.” Let us call it Community Obligation I feel lesser obligation to the welfare of those in the next town, state, or country. This does not mean I have no compassion for their suffering, it means if I can’t see it first hand, touch it, smell it, it is hearsay. If I am not a witness, even though I am quite sure it is real suffering, I do not have the sense of reality that I would have if seen in person. As distances increase, reality decreases to the point of abstraction. By the same token, the number of victims will dilute my feelings of compassion for the individual victim. I cannot weep any more tears for 100,000 than I can for one. Your theoretical starving child in another land is just as important as the one hit by a car in front of my house, but not as real to me at that moment. It is hard evidence versus hearsay.
Dinotoo
In some circumstances you do have a moral obligation to help. For example, if you look out your window and you see a woman being raped you have a moral obligation to call the police.
I think the real issue is one of degree. If there was only one starving child in the world then you would have a moral obligation to help. Since, there are millions of starving children in the world the problem is out of your control.
A guy once told me that he saw a boy walking to school in winter without a coat. He went and bought a coat and took it to the school. He met the principal, told him about the boy, and said he wanted to give him the coat. The principal asked him did he know which boy he saw because half the kids in the school didn't have coats. Even though this guy was a lawyer, he couldn't be expected to buy coats for all the coatless kids.
So, yes moral obligation exists in some circumstances but not all.
http://discussreligion.tripod.com/
So where do you draw the line, wm? When do actions go from being optional to obligatory, and vice versa?
Albert,
Honestly, I think if something is a moral obligation you will know it when you encounter it.
If you witness a crime occurring you have an obligation to call the police. If your child's friend is being abused you have an obligation to call Child Protective Services.
If someone is begging on the street you don't have a moral obligation to give money. You can choose to but you can't help every beggar in the world.
Moral obligations exist because as human beings, we live in societies. We live as social animals and through socialisation, we have come to learn that there is a need to behave in a way which does not upset the other people who share space with us. Thus this entails the NEED for moral obligations. Do not, however assume they are some innate quality - comparisons of different societies will show that what may be obligatory in one is not the case in another. Without some forms of moral obligations, I believe that for the most part, people would act in a self-interested manner, perhaps extending help to those that made some sort of personal impact upon their lives. There would be no need to be morally responsible since there would be no expected reciprocity of moral action from strangers. Moral obligation exists only as long as we exist as social animals... ask a hermit, I'm sure they will agree with my view...
Here’s a quote from outlightened (way back near the top): “However, for one to go out and find situations to be charitable in is, in a sense, egomaniacal. One who hunts ways to be charitable is arguably more concerned about their own character and image than those who are in need of charity.”
I did a post a while back on my own blog. It’s a quasi-mathematical proof that helping others is in the best interest of everyone, and that it is also a selfish and selfless act at the same time. Here is the post:
“You have 10 people. They are all out for themselves (we'll call this a ‘happiness’, to give it some quantitative measurement representing a person being happy). So, you have 10 people x (times) 1 happiness = 10 happiness. What if these 10 people would sacrifice their own wants for the greater good, so that OTHERS can be happy?
10 people x (times) 1 happiness for EACH other person (which would be 9) = 90 happiness. That means, for that one person who sacrifices his own wants for others, good things are visited back upon him NINE TIMES. Nine times the happiness... hmm...”
I realize this digressed a bit (quite a bit I’m sure) from where the thread went. And I realize that my “proof” is very simplistic. But I thought it had bearing on charity and obligation, and put a spin on what we think is “right” to do. I guess it’s more of a “what if” kind of thing. What if people were more charitable to their neighbors and less self-absorbed? It would create a sense of community; and if everyone in a neighborhood is part of a “community,” would they do things like commit crimes against those they have developed a bond with?
The biggest resistance a person would present to charity is that it can take additional effort and time. And--I know this is a bit pessimistic--most people don't want to take that time lest they miss New Reality Show (tm) on TV.
That’s my two cents.
Post a Comment