The philosophical proponents of moral obligation
The philosophical proponents of moral obligation, such as Kant affirm that is incorrect to assert that all the right acts are right for the same reason. The two important issues to consider in this case are the effects of the action and the action itself. However, most philosophers agree that moral principles are not deducible from a single perspective because every principle is independently applied.
The proponents of the social contract theory
The proponents of the social contract theory denote that, the natural tendency of human beings is to seek power with the intention of satisfying personal desires as evidenced by the contract between the government and the people. The aim of this essay is to critically analyse and determine the positions of Kant, Singer, and Thomson on our moral obligation to other people concerning connecting genetic healers to patients.
Kant's stance on moral obligation
Kant denotes that as human beings we have a moral obligation to help out others. He implies that failure to care for the needs of other people will be breaching our universal moral obligations. Although Kant states that it is an "imperfect duty," he equally contends that we have the power to decide the extent to which we commit ourselves in caring for others (Harding 4). Kant’s philosophy on moral obligation can be applied on several occasions as in the case of attaching cancer patients to genetic healers. From Kant’s view, the committee is justified to mandate the genetic healers to be connected with the other patients because of our moral obligation to care for other people (Harding 7). However, it is also possible to regulate process of connecting the genetic healers to the cancer patients if need be. Since the universal law of moral duties and obligation to others is imperfect the committee can loosen their laws and be flexible if needed.
Peter Singer on moral obligation
Peter Singer contends that it is our moral obligation to give generously not for purposes of charity but because we have to do so. In his argument on the "duty to give", Peter Singer states that it is our moral responsibility to reduce the cases of poverty and even death across the globe simply because we can. Singer (12) further defends his assertions with the reference to the rich countries that refuse to defend the poor. He says that countries do not act morally by not doing so (Singer 10). In promoting morality, we ought to sacrifice our comfort by preventing anything comparably bad from happening or failing to endorse some moral good in situations that call for our attention. Singer states it is the mandate of the healing committee and the genetic healers to ensure that the dying patients get the required medical attention. According to Singer (8), there is no reason to avoid connecting the genetic healers to the dying patients who are in dire need of help. Genetic healers have a mandate to cure the patients who are in need out as a way of fulfilling their moral obligation.
Thomson's perspective on moral obligation
Thomson commences by stating that the purpose of moral ethics is to set the standards for moral virtues by separating them from moral vices. Thomson (49) disputes the idea of a single standard measure of morality with the claims that every case is different from the other. On the other hand, Thomson affirms that most human beings categorize the virtues and vices as basic traits depending on the amount of utility that human beings derive from them (Thomson 62). However, one generalization the fact is that what one person ought to do in a certain moral situation is what a virtuous person ought to do. This assumption is further contradicting because of the fact that a non-virtuous person will never be in the same situation as a virtuous person (Thomson 60). Thomson further leaves the discussion open and states that since there is no single measure of morality and vices, the committee of healers can act in accordance with the situation at hand in executing their duties. Thomson (56) further demystifies her claims with the assumption that a moral obligation is what a virtuous person will do in a certain situation. The decision to either administer of withhold treatment in this scenario is determinant on the situation at hand which will vary across the genetic healers and the cancer patients.
Different perceptions on moral obligation
Kant, Singer, and Thomson have different perceptions on the concept of morality and moral obligation. Kant believes it is our moral obligation to help people in need. The healing committee and the genetic healers should, therefore be attached to the dying patients. Singer, on the other hand, denotes that we ought to help those in need because we have the capacity to do so. Since the healing committee and the genetic healers are in a position to heal the dying patients, they should at least do so even if not on a large scale. Thomson, however, states that it is difficult to generalize and explain what is a moral virtue or an immoral vice because of the changing circumstances that every scenario offers. From Thomson’s analysis, the healing committee as well as the patients will administer treatment basing on an observation of different circumstances of the dying patients and, hence, there will be no standard rule. Although Singer and Thomson’s views are equally applicable, Kant’s argument of the universality of morality is a cross-cutting assertion as is direct pins morality to certain traits and vice versa.
Works Cited
Harding Garrett. "Lifeboat Ethics: the Case against Helping the Poor". The Garrett Hardin Society, http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_lifeboat_ethics_case_against_helping_poor.html. Accessed 29 July 2018.
Singer Peter. "Famine Affluence and Morality". Philosophy and Public Affairs, Spring 1972, pp. 229-243.
Thomson Jarvis Judith. A Defense of Abortion Philosophy and Public Affairs, Autumn 1971, pp. 47-66.
