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 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. Utilitarianism, however, goes against the concept of moral obligation as it ignores the rationality of some actions. 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.
In his discussion on duty, goodwill and moral worth, Kant denote that as human beings we have a moral obligation to care for and help out other human beings. He further implies that failure to care for the needs of other people will be breaching our universal moral obligations as humans. Although Kant states that our moral obligation to care for other people 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 1974). Kant's philosophy on moral obligation can be applied on several occasions as in the case of a nursing home. In the nursing home, the manager can avoid treating his clients as a mere means to an end but as an end in themselves. The manager can allow the clients to have some form of autonomy as this will further empower the clients to be in control of their lives as opposed to the mercy of the manager. Kant’s principles according to Harding (1974) are also in line with the genetic healers in the sense that they both abide by a universal set of rules that govern the existence of human beings.
Peter Singer, on the other hand, 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 (1972) further defends his assertions with the reference to the rich well-off countries that refuse to defend the poor countries. He says that countries that do not go off their comfort zone to assist the poor countries do not act morally. 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 (1972) gives the example of a drowning child and states that when a child is drowning in a shallow pond, the moral thing to do is to pull the child out despite the little price of soiling one's clothes.
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 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 (Tomson 1971). However, one generalization the fact that what one person ought to do in a certain moral situation is what a virtuous person ought to do in that situation. 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. Being a major opponent to the standardization of morality, Thomson (1971) gives the example of Joan who borrows a book from Max. Even though Joan intends to return the book, she forgets in on a bench in the park only to be found by Max who is next on the line. Max assumes that the move is deliberate but Joan acted carelessly. Thomson argues that even though carelessness is a vice, its end results are virtuous in this scenario. Thomson, therefore, focuses on the individual problems that virtue presents as opposed to the general problems.
Kant, Singer, and Thomson have different perceptions concerning the concept of morality and moral obligation. Kant is firm on the issue of moral obligation with the assertion that, it is our moral obligation to help other people who are in need and save them from suffering. Singer, on the other hand, denotes that we ought to help those in need because we have the capacity to do so. 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. 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.
References
Harding Garrett. 1974. Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor. Retrieved 28th July from Lifeboat_Ethics__the_Case_Against_Helping_the_Poor_by_Garrett_Hardin_-_The_Garrett_Hardin_Society_-_Articles_2_.pdf.
Singer Peter. 1972. Famine Affluence and Morality. Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 1, No. 3 (springer 1972). 229-243. Retrieved from http:// links.jstor.org/sici=00483915%29197221%291%3A3%3C229%3AFAAM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3
Thomson Jarvis Judith. 1971. Blackwell Publishing: Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Autumn, 1971), pp. 47-66. Retrieved 29th
July 2018 from https://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/file.php/PPP475/Thomson%20Judith%20Jarvis%2C%20A%20defense%20of%20abortion.pdf
