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)
49 comments:
That's really strange and interesting. The most kind and big-hearted person in the world can't do everything for everyone they can at once. I think that thinking of this too much and actually attempting it would drive someone mad. It's like some sort of flexible bullet that you fire into the brain once you go irrational. It's impossible to tell whether you've fired or not, but once you start crying about the kid you could've saved might be dead, everyone knows.
And also, the person can drive themselves into poverty trying to support all those kids and will never save them all. There's a limit, and once you go over, even if it is a nice thing to do, Fate, or Luck, or God or whatever, is always there to kick you a permanent dent in the ass.
I believe that moral obligation only exists when it is in the best interests of both parties. There is no obligation to for one person to help another arbitrarily nor by any means. Random acts of kindness are always appreciated and, I believe, necessary. 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.
Television commercial pleading for someone's money is not charity. Charity, in my mind, is never asked for, it is just performed. Twenty cents a day is just another way for the wall streeter to sleep better at night.
The example of Pyrrho is an excellent example. Since Pyrrho did not help out his teacher, this by no means makes him a bad person. He was trying to learn something by not giving aid to this elderly man. If he had helped him, he would have learned nothing. In my eyes, if a man has a chance to intellectually grow and does not take this chance, then he has harmed himself, in the sense that he has not helped himself.
Moral obligation has no grounds in a world of moral relativity.
The problem with the idea of moral obligation lies not in any fine distinction between supererogatory and obligatory but in the greater idea itself. Absolute morality does not exist, being purely a human invention. If one defines, as you do, moral obligation as what one must do to "maintain moral good", then it would differ for each morality. Only a very vague morality would allow for differences such as "supererogatory". The entire concept seems to me a concept invented to allow oneself to hypocritically ignore their professed morality. If one's morality, a guideline for their actions, says the morally good action is to help a person if the cost is less than the benefit, then indeed it is "obligatory" for one to help. If one's morality states that the morally good action is to kill one's family, then one is "morally obligated" to do that as well. In essence then, one is "morally obligated" in every action or inaction one performs. One could easily be morally obligated in two mutually exclusive actions, so one has no choice but to sacrifice "moral good". This would lead to a great deal of mental distress, of course, unless one of two things (that i can think of) happen. One, is inventing an idea such as "supererogatory", that would justify not following one's moral guidelines. The other would be to realize that "moral good" is a meaningless concept. If i invent or adopt a morality that says killing all poor children, or saving all poor children, is right, and I fail to fulfill my "moral obligation", i would be considered "immoral" by my previous guidelines, but since morality is so subjective and absolutely nonexistent, it has no real effect unless I allow it to. If I commit an immoral act, all that changes is that some past incarnation of myself has committed a "wrong" action. If, as I believe one must, one defines morality as a code of behaviour, retrospective morality is pointless except as a source of observation. One can look back and say "I should have done that differently", but little else. Anyway, trying to impose one's morality on one's past self, something that no longer exists, is even more pointless than trying to impose it on another person who might have a different subjective goal. No one morality is "better" than another, so nothing stops one from simply changing my morality or ignoring it. The ideal morality (beyond a nonexistent one) would be the one that states that what is right is what I do. That way, I am always morally good, and am only obligated to do what I do. The only people who should have lasting moral dilemmas are those who are unable to adapt and/or view their morality as absolute.
I think it is most essential in this conversation is to provide a definition of charity. What is charity, what does it look like and what is its purpose. When does charity stop being a random good deed and become community service, or in other words serving the community. What acts are considered non obligatory and what makes them different from other obligatory ones, or are you claiming that no act of any kind can be considered obligatory. regardless of the degree of benefit it is providing for one or both parties involved. Where would feeding a child (not because it's a "good" deed) instead because you are saving a childs life fall on this degree model?
Once this is defined can there be a more indepth dialogue on the issue.
Another issue also needs to be taken into consideration....this might require more knowledge from all of us in order to appropriately address. These people, these smaller communities are they not impacted by us; those who have privleges living in the United States? Because inorder to really talk about obligation you also have to look at the root causes as to why 'certain people' are suffering (such as those children in Kenya, Guaina, South America, and every other third world country) Let's not also forget thoe who are living in America as well...why are people suffering in the first place, what is the cause. I feel once you learn those reasons, giving back will no longer be a matter of moral obligation but responsibility.
All I ask is that the issues are looked at seriously, and those of us who have the privileges to even access the internet and time to spare to discuss such issues, not hide behind our self protecting privileges and ignorance. Because it doesn't take only the Cesar Chavez', MLKs, Ghandis, and other social justice advocates to see how big our community is. How we are impacting one another (harming or benifiting).
I'll be writing again on this issue, I have not yet finished speaking my opinion. Until then peace!
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”…
Last attempt to reveal my identity… :-)
The idea of moral obligation is an interesting one considering the difference that lies between individuals and their environment. We as human beings have our own view of what is "morally" right and wrong, but essentially this comes down to the difference between cultural relativism and cultural absolutists. For example, the United States is a country that has many strong beliefs of what is a socially acceptable, but as we look at other countries we seem to identify their culture as wrong or not fitting as “morally right”, which clearly is a absolutists view. This is something that we as human beings tend to lose sight of because we believe that our obligation requires us to persuade others to be like the majority. As Nietzsche believed, we do have a responsibility in efforts to better humanity, but as I mentioned before sometimes we take this appellation to far.
As I continue my own understanding of moral obligation, I feel that it always comes back to John Stuart Mill. As I’m sure all of you already know, that Mill believed that a tyranny exists within a majority. This tyranny in the majority thus creates a prejudice on which anything contradictory of belief of the majority will be negated. I feel that a majority will always use the term obligation to encourage its own personal gain. The general betterment of society is simply a ploy or tool used by the majority in efforts to provoke certain sociological norms to be ascertained. We as human beings have the power and ability to ask questions but as this apathetic veil is drawn over the eyes of a nation we tend to lose sight of the moral obligations towards our fellow man.
I beleive moral obligations and altruism are something that has evolved with the species over time and has allowed us to become the dominant species on this planet. Now that we have accomplished that, there is often not much practical sense in this behavior. But still, doesn't it make life just a little more enjoyable not having to do everything for yourself, and put up with people hassling you the whole way?
Look, no one person is going to sit on their asses and tell me that if I don't do something I am immoral. Horse shit. I make my own morals, and no aussie philosopher or anyone else is going to tell me otherwise. They can make their own morality, too, but they are crossing a fine line when they tell me that I have to follow their rules or else I am an evil dude.
Like Albert said, moral obligation for all people ain't the way it's going to be. Not for me, and I'm guessing not for a lot of other poeple who can think for themselves.
A nice essay, Albert. Very well done.
Moral Obligation is relative. But there are certain things that should be done. If you have the ability to help someone, (and I'm not talking about taking the next flight to a third-world country to help feed the children) but if you see a purse-snatching in action, should you atleast make the effort to chase them down? And the answer is Yes, you should, it's being a good samaritan. And remember Karma, like it or not, some form of it exists.
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?
Albert,
Helping prevent the act of a purse snatching to me would not be a supererogatory act, you might get 5 dollars for it, but you wouldn't (in my opinon) be goin above and beyond. It would be a simple act of being a good citizen. And I would think if you didn't help then yes you would be on some level morally culpable. But one would also have to take in such circumstances as distance, if you're too far away to help, then you could always turn your head. And the person being victimized, would one be as willing to help a felon get their purse back then let's say, an eldery grandmother?
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?
This is all so confusing. There has to be a line where not doing something is wrong.
Like in Spiderman, for example. At the part where the robber runs right past Peter, and the guy who got robbed asked why he didn't stop him, should he have tried to stop him? He was right there and ran right past.
Well it would be a visual obligation. You would be more compelled to help child (a) because they are so close. What you don't see won't hurt you. Wookieehobbit makes a good point, Peter should have helped chase the robber down, distance is a big part of it, I'm not saying a hungry child here is any more important than one in Somalia but when it comes to walking an old lady across the street or picking up litter that someone threw down, little things that wouldn't change the world we should feel morally obligated to do.
I agree with wookiehobbit, this is all really confusing, and there should be a line somewhere...but where? I don't think Peter Parker should have had to stop the robber, because he would be putting himself in harm's way. It would be really courageous, like the fireman example from the article, but probably not a "have to" situation. Still though, there should be a line somewhere.
What is the real point either of you are trying to make? It's like one is arguing we should all become super heroes, and drop our lives to help others. Then the other is basically saying we are not obligated to do anything for anyone when it doesn't benefit us.
I more likely to side with we are not obligated to help where there is no benefit to us. Don't get me wrong, i beleive it is commendable to help others whenever you can, but would it be commendable if you Had to do it? If you are absolutely obligated to do something, then there's not much credit for it when you had no other choice. But, helping people you don't have to...
Well exactly, why sould it be so "commendable" just to help someone out? Why are we so selfish that unless it benefits us in some way we aren't going to do anything? And again I'm not saying we should be super-heroes, let's just all do a little something every once in a while. What's the harm in that?
An action is only "commendable" to the specific moralities that deem it to be so. To a Christian or utilarian morality, helping a dying child may be "commendable", but to a Sadist or an egoist, it is not so. There is also a general lack of reason provided in support of some of these ideas, perhaps most notably the difference between a starving child next to you and one far away. It seems to me rather self-defeating to say "what you can't see can't hurt you" and yet complain that "Are we so selfish that we cannot do anything unless it benefits us?". If your judgement on what is morally obligatory depends on whether or not the event is close enough to harm you, you are hypocritically supporting contradictory egoist and altruist ideals.
Also, several of you continue to remark about the necessity of a "line" between obligatory and supererogatory. As freethinkers, I ask you to question why there should be such a line, beyond the fact that it would make a person feel better about not helping that child in Somalia. As a strong supporter of absolutes, i do not draw arbitrary lines where they do not belong, and this is one situation where one is out of place.
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.
I was simply saying why you would be more compelled to help "child(a)" than "child(b)" perhaps "What you don't see won't hurt you," was a bad example, I meant, what you don't notice you can't help. Which is why distance is a factor.
But back to my victim scenario, does the person we're helping matter? Are we more inclined to help certain individuals over others?
I beleive we are, and if you don't i think so your only lieing to yourself. I'm not saying it's right, but it does matter.
And in your victim senario, this could be an endless possibilities as to why the purse snatcher decided to snatch that lady's purse. Perhaps he is just some begger that she just spit on passing the street. My point is, maybe in some way he felt he was getting even. Lol, maybe that lady should have been the good samaritan and given her money to him! He obviously needs it more than she does.
I'm going to take a very different view from most of you here. I am a very religious man, a sort of deist. I believe in God who manifests himself as nature and as all things. I use guidance from God to decide what actions I should do and what actions I should not do. You have to look carefully and patiently at nature and at the world to find the divine path, but it is there, and we should use it.
lol, playswithsquirels, I like your examples, very funny.
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 have very little understanding of sociology, but from what I've learned in a course i took last year i don't like it. I don't like it because it says, from my understanding, that basically humans are born without any morals of any kind. What they grow to beleive comes largely from there parents and experiences as they grow up. I don't like that cause i tend to like to think we are better than that. Better than just some chunk of clay who has no choice but to take the shape of whoever's hands are molding us.
I beleive moral obligation falls largely into this category. I'm with Ricky on the idea that there is certain moral obligations we have. However, I beleive we need a way to decipher what those obligations are, like gregger says. Only my way differs a little bit from his as i chose christianity. In that sence i'm siding with Josselynn to in a way, that we all have our own personal convictions as to what is morally obligating.
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
There are a great many opinions thrown around here, but almost no support. As freethinking individuals, you must go beyond "I dont like to think that..." or "I like to think that...", especially if you intend to convince anyone else or defend your own views. Why would moral obligation stretch "only to ones immediate circle"? Such a statement is unverified, and, I might add, completely false. You cannot support a view by saying one is morally obliged to help a family member but not a starving child because one feels more urgency in the former case. The entire idea of morality is that, while it is individually created, it is independent of a person's feelings at a particular time. It should not be, as some here have put it, "fueled by adrenaline". Joselynn comes closest to the correct view by realizing that the concept of moral obligation is not really separate from morality itself and that it is an individual concern. The Webster definition provided above is flawed, referring to the often-used language of "moral" as a description of one who follows THE absolute morality. Such an absolute does not exist, and thus this absolute morality is referred to as the generally accepted one in society at a given time. This definition of morality, however, is not our concern as freethinkers.
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
This is a bit off the subject but I had an interesting thought as I was reading your comment earlier Eriatlov. What makes free thinking so much better than say traditional thinking or so forth? In the end what is the difference, are going to be in some way better off than those who don't use free thought? Is it just so we can feel better about ourselves because we now beleive we now the truth of the world and have sorted it out for ourselves? You say to be free thinkers we must not just accept what is given to us, but why should we accept this new thought pattern that you are suggesting?
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
dinotoo, you said everything I wish I had said, you are right and I think it is this way to everyone, our "Community Obligation" is greater than any other. If two people were hit by a car and one was your friend, relative, etc, which one would you run to first, which one would you give first-aid to first? The answer is universal, obviously the one we knew would be the one we help first, and anyone who disagrees is in lieing to themselves.
Dino, your restatement still suffers from the same problem as the original. A "visceral reaction" should not be the judge of whether or not an action is morally obligatory. If I have a "visceral reaction" to people scratching nails on blackboard, but less so for watching a person execute another, and my morality states that killing people is wrong, am i morally obligated only to stop nail scratching? Visceral reactions may result FROM moral concerns over a situation, but the moral concerns should not sprout FROM the reaction itself. One COULD define a morality based on emotional reaction to a situation, but then the question arises, why should one feel a reaction to seeing a person slaughtered in front of their eyes. I would answer that this reaction arises from conflict with personal morality, leading to paradox.
As for Playwithsquirrel's comment, it is probably a topic in itself, questioning the benefits of "free thinking", and it is a valid concern. Voltaire has a great short story related to the subject. In short, I would answer you that free thinking is ultimately beneficial because without it, one is ignorant, and not independent, and this results in the idea that one's well being becomes based on factors that one does not understand. Through free thought, we can understand these factors, the first step towards controlling them. One can live a "happy" life without free thought, but if the shaky, invisible foundations of that happy life are changed, it is impossible for an ignorant person to adapt. When one fully understands the reasons behind existence, reality, and all the other concerns of free thought, one can, perhaps, create ones own ideal reality, absolute and unchanging or changing but easily adaptible.
Ricky, you are missing the point. You claim that most of us would help a family member over a stranger, but that is an observation and not a reason. Our goal is to find the CORRECT action, not just try to justify the one we would blindly take. Do not claim your answer is universal. Ideally, provided i could cast off environmental propaganda and social conditioning, I would not see a difference between helping a family member or a starving child a million miles away, and there have been a number of philosophers who have based their theories on that selfsame concept.
Wow, i like that answer. I agree that free thinking is important, but I thought that I should still question as to why that is and i liked your answer very much.
As to the moral obligation issue over the role of distance, there is always going to be someone in need somewhere. There isn't really a difference in a persons need whether they are here are there, it just happens to be more convienent to help the one closest. I say if you feel obligated to help the needy, start locally and work your way out and i'll meet you in the middle.
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
Dinotoo, i think perhaps the problem is you are misinterpeting the way we are using "obligation". We are not using it to describe a feeling, as in "i FEEL obligated to help this person". We are discussing what it means to be MORALLY obligated to help a person, in accordance with one's own morality. As I have stated before, morality should precede feeling in terms of obligation.
Playswithsquirrels, it is quite right of you, if perhaps a little circuitous, to question even freethinking itself, and I'm glad you found my answer satisfactory. Your point concerning moral responsibility and distance also has some merit. It successfully deals with some of our contested issues by not stating that we are any less obligated to help the person in Africa, but that convenience results in closer events to promote moore action. From this, however, it is still important to clarify that there would still be no difference between paying 10 cents a day to keep your mother alive and doing so to help a child in Somalia, and that if it is easier to call the number on the TV screen than to visit your mother and give her food, you should do the former. I have no problem with this, but I have a feeling some might take exception.
I would agree with you completly, that there is no difference betwwen helping the kid and helping your mother. But still, i would be more determined, or obligated, to help my mother out of personal feelings. Now that i think about it though, isn't that a bit selfish in a way? Of coarse, if i had already made a commitment to help this kid by giving him so much money, and i knew he depended on that i would first make sure he got it. Then i would just dig even deeper to do what it took to help my mom.
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.
I do believe we have moral obligations. By ourselves we cannot judge others on what we feel they should be morally obligated to do. But I also believe if someone witnesses a murder, robbery, abuse, rape or anything of those sorts and says nothing about it, then they are an accomplish along with the person committing a crime. That should be obvious things. Now helping a beggar, stopping to help someone stranded on the side of the road and stuff like that I don't see as necessarily obligation, but myself if I don't do that to a certain extent I am failing my personal morals. This is the line that we should define: personal and moral obligations. Personal are things one stands for and believes is right, these are smaller things like helping homeless, fundraisers, and things. The moral obligations are usually set by society, religion or of similar sorts. It's hard to define what is truly obligated. Most things are situational, but some I believe people are obligated to do: witnessing a major crime and not saying anything about it, seeing someone dying and not helping if you can, things like that. Now for my other obligations that I follow, which I don't truly feel obligated by others but myself and my values, I do base on my religion for the most part. That and how to be a gentleman, not just another guy.
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