Introduction
Moral responsibility is a state of deserving praise, punishment, blame or reward for an omission or act according to an individual’s moral obligation. According to morality, helping others is prosocial behaviour, one of the central pillars of morality. Generally, people view helping others as a moral right and responsibility. However, such responsibilities also have limits. Deciding what can be morally obligatory is one of the essential concerns in ethics. As such, we have the moral right to decline or accept what we can do with our time and money regarding helping others.
As virtue ethics dictates, we have the moral right to act right and become complete persons; I agree with this. Our best moral action would be assisting others and becoming virtuous. It is hard to teach people how to become virtuous. Conversely, it would be impossible for one to ignore an injured person for humanity’s sake. Advocating for moral advancement means that you understand the reasons behind your moral deeds. We assist others by bettering ourselves, bringing the truth to the notion that humans have a moral obligation to assist a person. On the contrary, moral obligation is imperious. Philanthropy improves the world since it is a good thing, though not a requirement. One’s task should be doing the right thing and improving oneself but others first. Regardless, I support that acting morally is essential for a perfect world as moral obligation is subservient rather than imperative.
Reasons for and Against a Moral Duty
People Are Humans
First, people deserve to be helped when the capability is available. In modern society, philosophy stresses how much people need to be supported. Cooperation is another necessary element that is very pronounced. People with a goal of optimization need to help others for a logical course of action. A better world is only liveable, wonderful, and better when we can help each other. For instance, we can only do unto others what we expect to be done to us. For example, if a hungry man deserves food, helping them eat will be appropriate rather than making them feel unwanted in the community. This person might help in another way besides time and money.
On the contrary, humanism, hedonism, and hatred are vital for a healthy human consciousness. At times, one can decline being put in bed since they do not want to, while others can feel the urge to kill. At times, you can break people’s hearts, while other times, your heart will be broken; while creating and denying needs, there is no way around it, and no one is obligated towards it. No one owes the world, children, men or women, anything. According to Hobbes, we all deserve to be helped, liked, and given back to society, even if selfless acts are selfish (Kraynak, 2019). However, there should not be an obligation written anyway that demand that.
Consequentialism
Secondly, consequentialism stipulates that we have a moral duty to do as much good for others as we can with our time and money. According to the theory, morality depends on producing the appropriate kinds of overall consequences (Card & Smith, 2020). Widespread consequences are anything that action brings about, inclusive of itself. We need to reduce overall suffering by helping others reduce their suffering in the universe. The theory also mentions that we must provide the best and most helpful to a more significant number of individuals to minimize suffering. For instance, $30 to an affluent individual is less valuable than $30 to an impoverished person. If a wealthy individual contributes that amount, it helps reduce suffering than when they could not (Card & Smith, 2020). On the contrary, nobody is morally obligated to reduce suffering to the world since the moral obligation is not an existing rule. A feeling of guilt pushes one to donate or give to charity.
Virtue Ethics
Thirdly, virtue ethics instigate our moral duty to give our time and money to others. In moral philosophy, virtue ethics is a broad term of theories that show one is doing a duty or acts to bring about good consequences (Proctor, 2019). Virtue theorists can offer advice such as acting virtuous as a certain person would act in a similar situation. Virtue theories take inspiration from Aristotle, who mentioned that someone with ideal character traits could be declared virtuous. Such traits are driven by internal natural tendencies that are nurtured. They become stable once established. For instance, one can be kind through innumerable situations in their lifetime due to character but not wanting to maximize utility or gain favours. Moreover, they could be doing their duty. According to virtue ethics, humans become complete when they act righteously but seem vacuous (Proctor, 2019).
As such, the best moral action we can take for ourselves is to help others by becoming virtuous. On the contrary, we are all selfish, according to Rawls (Said & Nurhayati, 2021). Things we do are for personal benefit. By acting according to virtue ethics, we do not attain more virtuous components but obtain something. Moreover, things we do are for personal fulfillment. Thus, doing something for yourself is not virtuous.
Empathy
Finally, empathy is an ultimate virtue that stipulates we have the moral obligation to help others with our time and money. We can understand other people by acting through empathy (Behler & Berry, 2022). Empathy is the ability to understand and share feelings with another person. Emotion researchers describe this feeling as coupled with imagining what other people might be thinking or feeling. Empathizing with others’ needs helps us understand their pain, making us obligated to help them. For instance, one can empathize with others by smiling and talking about a troubling issue to remember an individual’s name. Moreover, giving people full attention during meetings and being curious about their interests and life, offering constructive feedback are ways one can help with their time.
On the contrary, the argument about empathy distinguishes between understanding and obligation. If a person understands another’s pain, it creates a moral obligation (Behler & Berry, 2022). Thus, it is not necessary for they have to be helped but understood. Others can develop a compelling meaning or understanding but are not morally obligated to it. This logic is flawed since it leaves an individual to understand and assist what they are acting upon to fix what they understand about the other individual’s problems. Thus, the overall objective would not be accomplished by placing the power to define relevant terms for every person. This becomes counterproductive since it would cause more harm than good. One can never truly understand whether or not the need is appropriate or if any assistance would be meaningful. As such, having a moral obligation to assist becomes useless.
Conclusion
We have a moral duty to do as much good for others as possible and have the right to do what we have with our money and time. Virtue ethics, consequentialism, and empathy are some theories that support moral obligation. In addition, humans deserve to be helped when in need if the capability is available. In my opinion, we should choose to be morally obligated and help people with our time and money to reduce the amount of suffering across the globe.
References
Behler, A. M. C., & Berry, D. R. (2022). Closing the empathy gap: A narrative review of the measurement and reduction of parochial empathy. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, e12701. Web.
Card, D., & Smith, N. A. (2020). On consequentialism and fairness. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 3, 34. Web.
Kraynak, R. (2019). History and modernity in the thought of Thomas Hobbes. In History and Modernity in the Thought of Thomas Hobbes. Cornell University Press. Web.
Proctor, C. (2019). Virtue ethics in psychotherapy: A systematic review of the literature. International Journal of Existential Positive Psychology, 8(1), 1-22.
Said, M. Y., & Nurhayati, Y. (2021). A review on Rawls theory of justice. International Journal of Law, Environment, and Natural Resources, 1(1), 29-36. Web.