Our Moral Responsibilities to Distant Others - Essay Example

Our moral responsibilities to distant others Our moral responsibilities to distant others Introduction On a philosophicalpoint of view, human beings are inclined to think that all persons have a right to care for the others. On a wider justice viewpoint, it is valid to indicate that impartiality requires that the globe be an impartial and just dwelling place to live in for every individual. In the case of a family, family members accept as true that, they are charged with the role of protecting the rights of their fellow family members especially in the event of family concerns and problems. This not only applies to the family alone, but the society at large, inclusive of foreigners in the society. Citizens can be denoted to as being the residents of the world, and thus; are charged with the impartial role of caring for all in the society. This work shall assess the varying approaches of Immanuel Kant’s Kantian ethics and Stuart Mill – utilitarianism approach as portrayed in the works of O’ Neill and Singer respectively. O’ Neill and Singer are of the opinion that it is the moral obligation of the public to care for the needy. Kantian Approach According to O Neill (1980) human beings are rational beings. By virtue of being rational beings, they are governed by laws that govern their actions in the society- acceptable actions that humans are bound to perform despite their having a chance to opt out of these responsibilities. O Neill (1980) continues to highlight the formulation of humanity approach that aims at shedding light on the actions by other persons must have a sense of humane in them, whether they are done to persons that are related to us or persons that we are not related to. Essentially, this formulation outlines the need to treat others as the ‘ends’ and not the ‘means’ (O Neill, 1980). This interprets that all persons will be treated as beneficiaries of the act and not as tools of action. In the long run, respect prevails in the society, as both parties have their dignity maintained O Neill (1980) also indicates that all human beings have an inherent worth that is important to them and to others that are related to them. The intentions that a person portrays must in this case be related or directed towards morality. Rightness or wrongness of an action must be done for the good of the society, with or without reward. O Neill (1980) is of the opinion that in this society, persons act right since they are convinced it is right to do good. In the event that persons expect recognition and benefits from the good they do, then the society is destined to have numerous glitches since it may not be possible to reward all good actions. Of essence, it valid to argue that good actions that have received rewards lose their morality and are seemingly forced actions. The motive in this case, is not a moral one, but one that is inclined on the rewards. From his article on famine, it can be deduced that persons have a role to help the ones suffering from famine all over the globe (O Neill, 1980). This help will benefit the poor, and all the needy, an action that can be referred to as an impartial moral deed. The hungry in this instance will not be termed as ‘means’ in the deed, but the ‘ends’ of a moral action in the society. Utilitarianism approach In regard to the work of Singer (1972) Stuart Mill believes in the principle of happiness in the course of assisting other people. This is simply indicated to mean that, though we would want to assist other people in the society, it is vital that we make sure that we are not harmed from our actions. Mill argues that , at all times, humans must aim at maximizing the intensity of happiness of people as well as quality of happiness that persons will enjoy in the course of duty (Singer, 1972). From this thought, therefore, Singer (1972) indicates that this should the blueprint of weighing actions prior to engaging in any of them. A good example is when the hungry need help in the society. It would be of great happiness to assist the hungry since we cannot be happy whilst living in abundance and surplus, yet other people in our society are dying of hunger. In this case, therefore, motives do not apply while assessing the action of helping the needy. According to Mill, motives analyze the character of the doer, which does not apply, by any chance, in the morality of the action in question (Singer, 1972). In the work of Singer (1972) on famine, Mill’s ideologies on utilitarianism take the center stage. Great happiness is only achieved in the event of assisting the needy, and the distant needy in the society. Quality happiness only results from helping the ones living in poverty, since extra funds will only be used to purchase secondary needs, yet basic needs are an issue to the poor. From Singer’s (1972) work, starvation is evident in the work, poor living conditions, and poor health facilities; in the long run, mortality rates are on the increase. Happiness is achievable through preventing the deaths from augmenting whether morally right or wrong. Singer (1972) also emphasizes that distance ought not to be a barrier to offering help, and that any call for help must be heeded with immediate effect. The hungry that are far away need not be ignored, but helped with utmost will. This is for the reason that advancement in technology makes it easier to offer help despite the distance. The amount of help offered, according to Singer (1972) must be left for the doer of an action to choose, If they have a potential to offer more, they should be given a chance to help. Distant others and the utilitarianism approach Despite the numerous critics of Singer on his utilitarianism approach and proximity of help, I am inclined to argue for the theory. Human beings, though are likely to favor persons who are close to them in times of need, Singer (1972) argues that proximity does not apply. A person’s intuition according to Singer (1972) must drive them to help persons who require help at that particular time, whether related or not. The same concern one should have to their close neighbors and friends is the same one that should be shown to those that are far away. In this case, therefore, no single person should be made to feel less than, inadequate or useless. Any person in danger, despite their surroundings, needs help. In relation to the scale of preference, Singer (1972) argues that the distant in need are at the topmost scale of the hierarchy, while the neighbors who are comfortable and need surplus are at the lowest scale. From this argument, Singer (1972) makes it possible to personalize offering help in the society. Though human nature may lead one to helping friends and family, personalized care aids in offering help to the ones that need the help more than the others. Applying the argument in the case of famine and distribution of food, Singer’s (1972) argument would be the most applicable in offering aid. This would be advantageous since all the individuals in the society will acquire food based on their need. Conclusively, Singer’s (1972) approach on utilitarianism by Stuart Mill is applicable in the case of offering help to the needy in the society and the family. References O Neill, O. (1980). ‘Kantian Approaches to Some Famine Problems,’ From T. Regan, Matters of Life and Death. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies. Singer, P. (1972). ‘Famine, Affluence and Morality.’ Philosophy and Public Affairs. Vol. 1. No. 3. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Read More