Moral Obligation and Helping Others

From guest blogger, Alex.

In class we discussed the topic of our moral obligation to others. A fundamental question to ask is, “do we have a moral obligation to help others?”, even those we may not know. If we do have such obligations, then there are also questions about the foundation, nature and extent of these obligations. If we do not have such obligations, then there is the obvious question about why there are no such obligations. I think that a good argument for the fact that we all have moral obligations to others is to use the method of reversing the situation. This is based on the Golden Rule: “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and the basic idea is that consistency requires that a person treat others as she would wish to be treated. To make the method work, a person would need to want others to act as if they had obligations to her and this would thus obligate the person to act as if she had obligations to them. For example, if I would want someone to help me if I were struck by a car and bleeding out in the street, then consistency would require that I accept the same obligation on my part. That is, if I accept that I should be helped, then consistency requires that I must accept I should help others. This approach is somewhat like that taken by Kant. He argues that because a person necessarily regards herself as an end (and not just a means to an end), then she must also regard others as ends and not merely as means.  He tries to use this to argue in favor of various obligations and duties, such as helping others in need. I can think of, unfortunately, a counter to this sort of approach. It is easy enough to imagine a person who is willing to forgo the assistance of others and as such can consistently refuse to accept obligations to others. So, for example, a person might be willing to starve rather than accept assistance from other people. While such people might seem a bit crazy, if they are sincere then they cannot be accused of inconsistency. What do you guys think? Do we have a moral obligation to help others, even if we don’t know them? If so, why? If we don’t have any obligations, why not? Thanks.

Singer and Arthur on Charity

From guest blogger, Aria.

"In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, Singer argues that we are morally obligated to donate much more of our time and resources in helping those suffering from various causes such as famine around the globe. In fact, he is arguing that we need to change our moral scheme and instead of considering such humanitarian acts as supererogatory, we need to think of them as moral obligations we have towards our fellow beings. He gives the following two premises to support his conclusion: Firstly, death and suffering from lack of access to food, shelter, medical care, and such basic human needs is bad. Secondly, if we are able to prevent such suffering from happening without sacrificing something of comparable moral importance then we are morally obligated to do so.

He provides thought experiments (i.e. child drowning in the pond) to capture our natural moral intuition to get his point across. In addition to his theoretically neutral approach, as it was discussed in lecture, what makes his argument really strong is its emphasis on “moral luck”. It is an objective fact that we cannot predetermine the circumstances of our existence. By that, I mean that we can neither explain nor control where and to what kind of a family we are born to. In other words, you cannot explain why you were born into a family that supported you and gave you the opportunities to thrive and another person was born to a poor family struggling for their survival day after day. Such differences between me and you, and those struggling with such unfortunate circumstances, are nothing but byproducts of random chance events.  As a result, we cannot possibly blame others for their suffering in circumstances such as famine and natural disasters. Consequently, it is our moral obligation to prevent such sufferings to the best of our ability until we reach the point of marginal utility; the point where our assistance causes more suffering than the amount of suffering we are intending to prevent.

As discussed in class, Arthur’s objection to Singer’s key principle points out the importance of moral entitlements (our rights and deserts) in determining our moral obligations. Arthur believes that our right to personal property, our own body, and resources, supersedes the right of others against us and our resources. Thus, we bear no obligation to assisting others in cases of famine and other calamities.  

At this point there is a standoff between these two mutually exclusive moral perspectives. What makes our discussion about them challenging is explaining why we should favor one over another. Why should we think that our personal rights supersede the right others have against us to prevent their suffering/or save their lives?  Similarly, what reasons do we have to think that someone’s right to life/ or prevention of suffering is superior to our right to our resources/fruits of our labor?"

Is Singer's Principle Too Demanding?

From guest blogger, William.

In class we discussed poverty and charity, particularly Peter Singer’s view on both subjects. Singer is a consequentialist and thinks that if you have the opportunity to prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing something of comparable moral significance, then you ought, morally, do so. Singer uses a thought experiment to prove his point. If you see someone drowning in a pond, then you have a moral obligation to try and save that person, Singer believes. To many the moral intuition is very solid. Many people believe that you should save people when you have a chance. Then why has Singer’s position come under so much criticism? Many believe that Singer’s position is too demanding. Others believe that it violates personal property rights. Since Singer is a consequentialist his response to such criticisms would be that his view maximizes happiness and reduces suffering. To him those are the only things that matter in morality.

            However, Singer’s position is rather unsteady when you look at it and charity through a deontological outlook. Deontology looks at morality through a motivational and intuition formation outlook, while Singer focuses on the consequences of one’s actions. There are two thought experiments that show the issues with Singer’s position. The first deals with charity and tax exemptions. The American tax system is set up so if you donate to charity, you can write it off on your taxes and thus pay less. While a fair amount of people donate to charity because they believe that it is the right thing to do, some people and corporations donate because they can pay less in taxes. To many this is morally abhorrent. However, Singer would not find it morally wrong to donate to charity for tax breaks. This is because to Singer the donation still helps people who are suffering. Deontology supports the intuition that such actions are morally corrupt. This is because the motivation for donating to charity to pay less in taxes is morally wrong. It is selfish and treats charities and charity workers as a means instead of an end. The second thought experiment deals with for-profit charities. Most major charities are for-profit and thus most of the money donated to them does not go to those in need. As a consequentialist, Singer would view your actions as not morally good. This is because the donation did not actually go to those in need and ease their suffering. But many who donate to these charities feel that their actions are moral. This is where deontology comes in to play. Even though your donation may not go to those who need it the most, it is still morally correct. This is because your motivation for donating was to help those in need.

            Singer’s position looks impervious to lasting criticism. However, deontological criticism pokes holes in Singer’s theory. This is because as a devoted consequentialist Singer overlooks certain exceptions to his theory. These exceptions can be seen through thought experiments about tax exemptions and for-profit charities.

Singer and Saving Others in Peril

From guest blogger, Hannah.

In class, we discussed Singer’s idea that if we can prevent something very bad from happening to someone else without sacrificing something of comparable moral significance, then we ought, morally, to do so. This creates the idea that giving to charity ought not to be thought of as something supererogatory, but something that is a moral duty for each and every person. Arthur argued against this point, saying that people do not have to give their property to other people in need because they are entitled to goods and property that they have earned and that charity is supererogatory.

I propose a thought experiment in order to prove Arthur correct that there is no moral obligation to give hard earned goods to someone in further need. Suppose someone asks you for your homework in a class where you make sure to do all the readings and answer questions in order to prepare for class or to let them look at your essay after you’ve worked for countless hours on perfecting your argument. Generally, you follow a strict moral policy not to cheat or help others cheat because you work hard for your grades and deserve them and find cheating immoral. However, this predicament is more difficult because the other student tells you that this particular homework, paper or exam will determine if they pass the class, since after avoiding the other assignments they are close to failing. If they fail, their parents will not continue to pay to send them to this University and, in the eyes of consequentialists, could lead to much worse problems in the future for that student. This is a less extreme, more realistic version of the farmer who worked hard making the decision to keep his food from the lazy farmer.

I feel that according to Singer’s logic, he may say that because you have this extra information you are obligated to give some information to the student to help them succeed; however, Arthur would say that you worked hard and they were lazy, therefore you are entitled to decide to withhold the information from the other student. Do you find that it is moral to cheat in this situation in order to help the other student? If you were Singer, how would you counter this argument to avoid the permissibility of cheating?

Singer's Argument and Implications for Society

From guest blogger, Liam.

Singer wanted to reform moral code so that people would be more giving and less selfish. If everyone acted according to his principles the world would be a better place (there would be less suffering). In a utopian society his principles would thrive, but we live in a world where people benefit from exploitation of others. If everyone was willing to sacrifice at the level Singer expects then there would be an abundance of people prepared to sacrifice to others in need. If this became reality then some people would be incentivized to act lazily and expect others to provide for them.

This scenario is very similar to communism. It sounds great that everyone should share resources equally but in reality it does not work. People only act when their backs are up-against the wall. If the government/society provides too big of a safety net then people will have no incentive to provide for themselves by working hard. 

In America, our current moral code works because it creates competition. Individuals have a right to their property and are only required to give away a small part of it through taxation. Because of this, people are incentivized to accumulate as much wealth as possible. This encourages competition in the economy. Competition is important because people are striving to innovate their products and invent things that are valued by society.

So, if we abide by Singer's principles then innovation and invention would not be incentivized in our society. It is moral to help others in need, but forcing people to help others would create an economic standstill that would lead to more problems than it solves.

Singer and Charity

From guest blogger, Michael.

In class we discussed Singer’s argument for why we should each live a more selfless life.  It seemed that we all generally agreed that he was right, and that we can and should do more to decrease the amount of suffering in the world.  And yet, it didn’t seem like we emphatically, as a class, were willing to alter our lifestyles significantly for the betterment of the world.  This phenomenon of rationalizing why we ought to perform a certain action, but still not feeling strongly compelled to perform it was very puzzling to me. 

We either must accept that we’re bad people or we must reject Singer’s argument.  Well, I personally cannot find any problems with Singer’s argument so I can logically conclude that I’m a bad person.  By enjoying the life I do I am morally responsible for a great amount of suffering in the world.  Despite this, I don’t really feel bad about it even though I’ve rationalized that I ought to.

This made me wonder if I am actually a rational being or not.  

Perhaps I just do what is rational when it conveniently coincides with my emotions.  I found this possible conclusion somewhat concerning, as I’d like to believe I’m a rational being.

Answering Singer's Call

After some discussion of Peter Singer's work, students in my Philosophy and Public Issues class have expressed a desire to donate money to a charity. I mentioned two charities that I think are fairly effective/are engaging in admirable work: Heifer International and OXFAM. I'm sure readers of this blog have other suggestions for deserving charities. I'm hoping to get a list of charities over the next week or two. I'll then post a poll to see which gets the most votes. The winner will receive the funds that we're able to collect this semester. I'm hoping to cast a fairly wide net. We might consider setting up a table in the University Center to get donations from students not enrolled in the class, faculty/staff, etc. But first things first. Where should we send the money?

MOVED UP FROM 2/9: I've moved this post up in the hopes that I'll get a few more suggestions...