Moral Obligation and Moral Distance

1423 Words6 Pages
Moral Obligation and Moral Distance The given statement invokes several moral questions and concerns in light of our moral obligations and boundaries. “There is an earthquake that wrecks havoc in Farawayistan so that 1000 people are left without homes or livelihood; and there is a hurricane in the USA that does the same”. Both cases depict a grave catastrophe that supposedly attract similar attention despite occurring in different geographic locations. At stake is not only victims’ basic welfare but also their lives. At this point, the ball is in our court. Do we have more moral obligation to those that are close by than those far away? For this particular case, do we have more moral obligation to the victims of the hurricane in the USA than to the victims of the earthquake in Farawayistan? Do we even have moral obligation to help the victims of the said disasters, to begin with? In the following essay, I will be addressing these questions in detail. Since most people, like myself, hold that we have a moral obligation to the needy, my defense would be in form of justifications rather than explanations. I will begin by quoting an argument Peter Singer made in his article “Practical Ethics”. Singer claims that “not to give all one possibly can to save people from starvation (or problems arising from disasters, in this case) is tantamount to murder”1. Of course his emphasis is too strong – he labels those who fail to give “murderers” – but the situation in such cases of disasters as hurricane is so urgent that such a label can pass. Whether our reason for helping the needy is to expatiate ourselves from guilt or not, the net effect of contributing is, in most cases, positive. Consequentialists would agree that if contributing would result in a net positive change, then it is worth the sacrifice. Otherwise doing nothing is much worse, for both
Open Document