Obligation to Care - Assignment Example

Obligation to Care

There are many dreadful issues that take place in modernity all around the world. There is a question regarding the responsibility and obligation to care about other people. There are various positions on this issue. Through this assignment, the two points of view, by Singer and by Slote, will be considered and analyzed. My personal opinion is that the assumption proposed by Singer was right, because he reasonably states that under any circumstances, it is right to act morally and help people who are in trouble; yet, he does not mean sacrificing too much and harming own interests – it seems to be a just and reasonable approach to charity. I agree with an ethical position proposed by Singer: it is morally right to act as if there is no difference, whether people are close or far away, both friends and strangers deserve to receive help, as mutual help and support would lead to the improvement of the whole world, not merely the nearest environment of the person.

Peter Singer in his article “Famine, Affluence and Morality” shares, first of all, the sole idea that when people are dying from starvation, it is bad; and in case people may help with no really troublesome consequences, it is a proper idea to do so. In case nothing comparably bad would happen, people ought to help. In case they can prevent something wrong from happening, and it will not lead to the negative moral outcomes, it would be morally right to prevent that first wrong issue (Singer, 1972). There are tricky issues that may lead to deceptions. They first one emerges when considering Singer's statement that it makes no difference, whether the person in trouble is near or far from us. The second concerns the spread of responsibility: whether the person is the only one who can help, or there are millions. Singer says that it can be compared with discrimination – preferring to help those who are closer. People are nor familiar indeed with the troubles of those who are starving somewhere far from. The issue was dealt by sending the expert observers and supervisors to the famine-prone areas. This step enables a kind of connection as if the victims of famine were closer and more real.

Singer shares concerns regarding the issue that people feel less guilty when they appear to be in the equal position with the millions of other people who might help as well. In case a person would be the only witness who sees the drowning child, for instance, the shame and guilt would not allow him or her to remain detached. But in case there are millions who do nothing as well – a person would feel more calm, as the majority do nothing. There is a question “Why me?” But disregarding any contradictions, still Singer thinks that people have to care equally for close people and strangers; for those who are nearby and for those who are distant.

Michael Slote does not agree with this position. His article is connected with sentimentalism. He thinks that it is unnatural and counterintuitive to equate the closest people and strangers. He does not agree with Singer that saving child that is drowning in the lake and charity for those who are distant and were never seen can be considered as equal. Caring for those who are strangers is also a positive issue, yet the balance between the value of the two has to be established. Further, he provides a clarification for the terms ‘empathy’ and ‘sympathy’ that were confused by David Hume (Slote, 2004). It is a smooth element, which distinguishes the terms and makes a solid difference between them. One can feel pain for somebody or feel somebody’s pain. That is the core difference between sympathy, which is the first part that addresses compassion, and empathy, which refers to the second part and means an ability to really feel the same, not having feelings as a response to somebody's feelings. Mainly, Slote provides a variety of claims that support that it is not reasonable to equate saving a child that is drowning in front of us and making enormous sacrifices for the sake of those who are less fortunate. Slote names such efforts supererogatorily good.

I share the point of view proposed by Singer in his article, because it provides a solid background for fair and equal attitude to people around the globe. First of all, the world would be quite a better place in case people would share the common pain and would not be strangers; in case people would know they would always receive help, even though they are left without any close people due to a disaster, for instance. People are all the citizens of the Earth. So far, creating a unique base of mutual support would make the world a better, kinder and safer place.

Singer is also right regarding his statement about sharing a little amount, which would be not a problem for any person, but would enable to cover the needs in food for all the people who suffer from famine. He had never said that people have to sacrifice own needs and be left without resources for proper existence. Yet, even 5 pounds might help, if all the people would donate once. It may be hard and even harmful to give away something valuable. However, insignificant contribution is affordable. People widely avoid charity and helping as they think of it as loosing of great amounts of money, resources and energy. But it was shown by Singer that, evidently, it is not so. Little contribution is not only better than nothing: it is a power of joint concern and effort. So far, this proposal is another idea for implementation.

Providing the sound counterarguments, first of all, it can be stated that indeed people tend to help those who they see in the nearest proximity rather than those who are living in the distant areas in the countries located in the opposite part of the globe. It is the point of view proposed by Slote. He says that it is unnatural to get involved too deeply in the troubles of foreigners, facing troubles of the nearest people. When something happens nearby, a person feels own being attached to the situation. While starving children in Africa or people from Bengal are so far that they seem to be a kind of a myth or a fairy-tail – as there is no personal real-life evidence, even though people know that such issue exists. They have never been there and have never seen it. This serves as a reason for the claims like those Slote proposed. The other issue is a so-called bystander effect. At the core of this effect lies a phenomenon that the more people see or hear about the dreadful event, the lower probability that any of them would react. This effect takes place, for instance, when some people are being killed in front of the variety of other people. Individuals tend to think that there are other people who might help and do nothing themselves. In case there is only one viewer, the probability to help is higher. It is a kind of diffusion of the responsibility which happens when many people are witnesses. The reasonable question emerges: “why should I do more than any other people?” People may care more than others do – thus, they would contribute more to the joint issue. People widely do not think they need to do more than the others. There are many reasons, but main among them are probably greed and laziness. These are not the best features people may obtain – this is evident. The same happens when the issue of famine is considered. People have food to eat – so they rarely care about those who are far away, as they have no direct bonds with them.

Considering a perspective proposed by Slote, it can be said that it points on the limitedness of the perception and lack of humanism. According to Singer, such state of affairs is completely unfair. Even though suffering people are far away, they deserve help. There can be a hypothesis proposed, which would assume that in the background of such 'discrimination' lie both the fear and sympathy. People want to improve the world they see, on the one hand, and on the other, they are afraid that something wrong and undesirable might happen in the nearest proximity. People would like not to see sufferings, as they are afraid to become victims themselves; so far, they tend to 'invest' own physical and material resources to something they see – it enables safety. Following perspective may seem quite egoistic. People should start to realize that it is always 100% responsibility each person holds – it is never shared. In case people would accept such assumption, they would do more effort and would not leave aside when something bad is happening. The final point that supports that Singer is right is that he never claimed that excessive efforts are needed. Singer said that even that every person would send only 5 pounds to starving people in Bengal, there would be no starving people anymore. It is not a great deal.

Appealing to all the before-mentioned, it can be deservedly stated that Singer was right in proposing a paradigm of equality for all the people. Everybody might get into trouble. No one would like to be left abandoned in trouble. So why people tend to leave other people in their trouble alone? It is reasonable, so far, that people have to start thinking that all in the world is interconnected. It does not matter where the people are starving – they are all humans. A person has to learn to make no distinctions when helping. In case some part of population within the globe appeared to be less fortunate than the other groups, it is not a reason to be glad that this population is not the one we live in; but it the reason to share concerns, responsibility and help other people within the borders of own capabilities. It cannot be said that Slote was absolutely mistaken. The more intimate type of caring that takes place between the close people deserves a particular attention. It is moral to care about those whom individual sees and knows. However, it is essential to avoid the considered traps of the distance and bystander effect. It is crucial for people to overgrow own egoism and start perceiving this world as a whole. Another essential point to remember, is responsibility. It is not shared equally among all the people on the globe. Every person has not a tiny amount of responsibility – but 100% responsibility for own choices and actions. Thinking that another person might do something is wrong. People may be sure just in own actions. So far, it is not a collective, but a personal issue. Implementing own care for those who need it can be compared to an innate duty. It cannot be traced through the consideration of the benefits.