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
What are the options available with Rohit to cope with the situation?
What are the ethical dilemmas being faced by Rohit?
Which of the options, do you think, would be more appropriate for Rohit to adopt and why?
In the present situation, what are the extra precautionary measures to be taken by the police in dealing with women protesters?
What should be Sneha's course of action?
