Are There Limits to Moral Obligation - Coursework Example

Are there limits to moral obligation? Name Course Name and Code Instructor’s Name Date Introduction The term moral obligation has various meanings in religion, moral philosophy as well as in layman’s terms. Typically, an act is referred to a moral obligation when it is prescribed by ones set of values. However moral philosophers differ as to the origin of moral obligation and whether the obligations are external or internal to the agent (Bentham, 1996). There are no limits to moral obligation. The central claim is Rational moral agents have an obligation to help others in distress as long as the risk is marginal. To begin with, deontological theory supports the claim. This is due to the fact that it states that some choices cannot be justified by their effects. Another justifying theory is that of evolution of altruism. It states that evolution does not support human behaviour. On the contrary the Christian charity differs with these two theories. This is because; it entails a robust moral obligation to help others in distress irrespective of the extent (Wedekind and Braithwaite, 2002). The theory of consequentialism also counters the claim since it states that if one can prevent bad from occurring, without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance then he should do so. Based on my perspective, the theories are controversial. There are no limits to doing what is right. Morally, helping the needy is an obligation that people should fulfil irrespective of the risks. Argument 1 An example of Deontological theory is the Kant’s theory which judge morality by evaluating the will of the agents as well as the nature of the actions rather than the goals attained (Catherine, 2002). The theory focuses more on the inputs other than the outcomes. The reason as to why it shifts from the consequences to duties is because irrespective of the efforts put in the future cannot be controlled. In addition there is no rationale of deciding on ones duties. For instance, a business man may choose to always report early for meetings. Despite this being a noble act, it is not quite clear why this person decided on it. Moreover people’s duties may conflict and according to deontological theory, the welfare of others is not of concern (Catherine, 2002). The theory therefore means that one should follow his or her obligations without considering others because performing ones duty is what is considered right and that there are limits to doing that which is right. The theory therefore, supports the claim that rational moral agents have an obligation to help others in distress as long as the risk is marginal. This is due to the fact that the theory does not limit the agent. The agent is allowed to uphold his duty of what is considered correct (Catherine, 2002). In addition he is allowed to choose whether to help or not. After all, irrespective of the efforts put in, to help the person in distress, the future does not count. According to the theory the moral agent has an obligation to help those in distress as long as the risks are marginal. This is supported by the fact that the theory focuses on the inputs other than the outcomes. Therefore it will be convenient for the agent to help one whose risks are minimal than long term. This clearly evidences the fact that there are limits to moral obligation since it claims to help the needy when it is not too costly. Counter argument 1 Contrary to this, the Christian charity counters the claim. This is due to the fact that Jesus spoke of helping the needy as a constituent of authentic religious faith in God (Wedekind and Braithwaite, 2002). Not doing according to God’s teachings is turning away from him. Since this is justifiably punished and punishment is justified for not doing what is obligatory, it follows then that rational moral agents have an obligation to help others in distress whether the risk is marginal or not. The bible teaches that if one is needy among you, this person should be given sufficient for his needs and that the giving hand should not have a wicked thought in their heart regretting their good deeds (Wedekind and Braithwaite, 2002). According to this theory the obligation is giving to the distressed. In addition, God gives us directions on how we are supposed to help the needy. The needy should be helped bountifully and sufficiently without considering the risks. Therefore according to these teachings of the theory, rational agents have an obligation to help those in distress not as long as the risks are marginal but indefinitely for this is what is considered morally right and there are no limits to moral obligation. Reply to counter argument It is evident therefore from the account that the doctrine is obvious. This means that the people of God have a complete as well as an indispensable duty to willingly and sufficiently supply for the needs of the distressed. More particularly they should do well and lend and hope for nothing. Our claim states that rational agents have an obligation to help those in distress as long as the risks are marginal. This means that people should have limits to doing what is morally right. According to this argument, however, there are no limits to doing what is right as the teachings say those in need of help should be helped and supplied sufficient wants for their needs. The argument therefore does not agree to the claim. Argument 2 The evolutionary theory supports the claim. This is due to the fact that evolution does not explain moral behaviour (Bentham, 1996). The theory is selfish and focuses on benefiting themselves. It therefore supports the claim is that people in distress should be helped only when the risk is minimal since they will not give much to benefit others. In addition the human cooperation to help p others is an evolutionary puzzle. People tend to cooperate with those they are unrelated to or people they will never meet and where it is not costly. What is hard to prove in this theory is how these patterns can be explained. It is apparent therefore that one has the right to choose who they want to help and for how long. This is so because the theory does not state any punishment for defectors of cooperation. In most cases there is a great cooperation or altruistic behaviour behind people of the same genes (Bentham, 1996). Therefore the rational agent has an obligation to help a person in distress but only when the risk is minimal. This is evidenced by the fact that they like helping where they will also gain and helping a stranger they will either get little or no gain and so they cannot risk putting so much effort in it. This theory is clear evidence that there are limits moral obligation. The fact that people cooperate with those who will benefit them shows clearly that the rational agent will not just help all as required but will choose who to help. This hence limits a lot in distress and in need of help. Counter argument 2 On the contrary, consequentialism counters the claim. The theory is based on the capability to predict the outcomes of an action. It is apparent from the theory that the choice that brings great benefits to the majority is the right choice (Catherine, 2002). An advantage of the theory is that it can determine which choice is more beneficial to many people by comparing certain predicted solutions as well as by use of point system (Catherine, 2002). The result provides logical and rational argument for each decision. According to the theory one is supposed to be helped again and again for it is morally right according to its principles (Singer, 1972) For instance if one came across a drowning child in a river or pond, you should rescue the child irrespective of the cost or personal risks to be accrued. It is evident that Peter Singer, in 1972, proposed the principle of benevolence. This was after observing that the inhabitants of the affluent developed societies are exactly in the same position as the poor in the undeveloped countries and are in dire need of help from a rational agent indefinitely. This directly relates to the drowning child who equally needs to be rescued from the pond. The principle states that if one can prevent some significant bad from occurring, without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, one ought morally to do so (Singer, 1972). Such happenings as death, poverty or injury are uncontrovertibly bad and it is the obligation of rational agents to help irrespective of the costs or the risks they expose themselves to. It happens that you may give your all to help now and still need to help again and again later. According to the principle this is what is morally right. With the requirements of the principle to help and help the needy more until their needs are met, irrespective of the costs as well as the personal risks to be accrued, the principle therefore is not in agreement with the claim that the rational moral agents have an obligation to help others in distress as long as the risk is marginal. Reply to counter argument From this argument therefore, it is not right that the rational agents have an obligation to help the distressed as long as the risk is marginal. This is due to the fact that according to the principle this could be morally wrong. The principle necessitates that the distressed be helped unconditionally and if need be again and again without considering the costs or the personal risks that one could experience out of his or her noble act. In addition the theory evidences that there are no limits to doing what is right and that what is wrong is not being morally right. Conclusion This paper has aimed to explain the claim rational moral agents have an obligation to help others in distress as long as the risk is marginal by use of two justification arguments as well as two counter arguments. In response to this claim, human compels one to put ourselves as well as those close and dear to us in the first priority when it comes to making decisions on how to act in order to help those in need. It would be extremely difficult therefore for people to follow the counter arguments which call for people to devote themselves to wholly support those who are in need fully. In addition, raising the level of moral obligation will produce two effects moving in the opposite direction. Setting the level higher will improve the outcomes of the actions of the people who conscientiously aim to do as the higher norm demands. Moreover setting it a little higher will reduce the number of people who strive to act according to moral requirements. As the level becomes more demanding people will become more dormant to and less disposed to carry out even its marginal requirements. It is therefore compelling to let people distinguish what is morally right as well as wrong from what is morally obligatory. References Bentham, J. (1996). An Introduction to the Principles of Moral Legislation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Catherine, R. (2002). Descriptions of Ethical Theories and Principles. Retrieved from http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/kabernd/indep/carainbow/Theories.htm Singer, P. (1972). Famine, Affluence, and Morality. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1, 229-243 Wedekind, C., & Braithwaite, V. A. (2002). The long-term benefits of human generosity in indirect reciprocity. Current Biology, 12, 1012-1015. Read More

The theory therefore means that one should follow his or her obligations without considering others because performing ones duty is what is considered right and that there are limits to doing that which is right. The theory therefore, supports the claim that rational moral agents have an obligation to help others in distress as long as the risk is marginal. This is due to the fact that the theory does not limit the agent. The agent is allowed to uphold his duty of what is considered correct (Catherine, 2002).

In addition he is allowed to choose whether to help or not. After all, irrespective of the efforts put in, to help the person in distress, the future does not count. According to the theory the moral agent has an obligation to help those in distress as long as the risks are marginal. This is supported by the fact that the theory focuses on the inputs other than the outcomes. Therefore it will be convenient for the agent to help one whose risks are minimal than long term. This clearly evidences the fact that there are limits to moral obligation since it claims to help the needy when it is not too costly.

Counter argument 1 Contrary to this, the Christian charity counters the claim. This is due to the fact that Jesus spoke of helping the needy as a constituent of authentic religious faith in God (Wedekind and Braithwaite, 2002). Not doing according to God’s teachings is turning away from him. Since this is justifiably punished and punishment is justified for not doing what is obligatory, it follows then that rational moral agents have an obligation to help others in distress whether the risk is marginal or not.

The bible teaches that if one is needy among you, this person should be given sufficient for his needs and that the giving hand should not have a wicked thought in their heart regretting their good deeds (Wedekind and Braithwaite, 2002). According to this theory the obligation is giving to the distressed. In addition, God gives us directions on how we are supposed to help the needy. The needy should be helped bountifully and sufficiently without considering the risks. Therefore according to these teachings of the theory, rational agents have an obligation to help those in distress not as long as the risks are marginal but indefinitely for this is what is considered morally right and there are no limits to moral obligation.

Reply to counter argument It is evident therefore from the account that the doctrine is obvious. This means that the people of God have a complete as well as an indispensable duty to willingly and sufficiently supply for the needs of the distressed. More particularly they should do well and lend and hope for nothing. Our claim states that rational agents have an obligation to help those in distress as long as the risks are marginal. This means that people should have limits to doing what is morally right.

According to this argument, however, there are no limits to doing what is right as the teachings say those in need of help should be helped and supplied sufficient wants for their needs. The argument therefore does not agree to the claim. Argument 2 The evolutionary theory supports the claim. This is due to the fact that evolution does not explain moral behaviour (Bentham, 1996). The theory is selfish and focuses on benefiting themselves. It therefore supports the claim is that people in distress should be helped only when the risk is minimal since they will not give much to benefit others.

In addition the human cooperation to help p others is an evolutionary puzzle. People tend to cooperate with those they are unrelated to or people they will never meet and where it is not costly. What is hard to prove in this theory is how these patterns can be explained. It is apparent therefore that one has the right to choose who they want to help and for how long. This is so because the theory does not state any punishment for defectors of cooperation. In most cases there is a great cooperation or altruistic behaviour behind people of the same genes (Bentham, 1996).

Read More