Some moral philosophers argue that spending some of your resources—without significantly affecting your financial stability—to help other people who badly suffer is our moral duty and not merely a matter of charity. Justify this claim by explaining the distinction between duty and charity.
The moralists' claim, associated with philosophers like Peter Singer ("Famine, Affluence and Morality"), is justified when we distinguish between charity and duty.
Distinction:
- Charity is discretionary, praiseworthy but not obligatory — its absence draws no moral blame. Its motive is generosity.
- Duty is obligatory — its neglect is morally blameworthy. It arises from justice, not benevolence.
Justification for Elevating It to Duty:
- Utilitarian argument: If we can prevent grave suffering at negligible cost to ourselves, failure to do so is morally comparable to causing that suffering.
- Kantian argument: Treating others as ends demands positive assistance when their basic dignity is threatened.
- Rawlsian justice: In an original position, all would agree to redistribute marginal surplus to those in extreme deprivation.
- Gandhian trusteeship: Wealth beyond need is held in trust for society.
Thus, contributing modestly to those in dire need is a positive moral obligation, not optional benevolence.
Answered By:
Important Questions from GS4
A business house is working on a project that could displace a forest community from their habitat. As the administrative officer of that district, what ethical challenges are you likely to face?
An endangered tribe has developed a severe skeletal deformity. A university research has identified a mineral supplement as a possible remedy, though clinical trials are yet to be conducted. Should the District Magistrate (DM) use this research on the tribe? Discuss from the perspective of medical and administrative ethics.
Discuss how national security can be balanced with concerns of human rights.
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar had cautioned that employing civil disobedience within a constitutional democracy equates to endorsing 'anarchy'. How should modern democracies navigate the ethical dilemmas posed by civil disobedience movements that aim to promote social justice against policies that may raise genuine concerns?
In what ways can an Indian Administrative Officer apply Gandhi's notion of 'trusteeship' to ensure fairness in governance?
