I have to write a 6 page paper on our moral obligations to those who are suffering, but I'm not sure that we are obligated to do so.
I'm actually thinking about using this to describe the basis for morality and then explicating on how a society can punish aberrant acts for the good of the whole. Does that seem like a decent idea to y'all?
Most Helpful Girl
This is heavy-duty and in some ways it’s a trick question or a tricka and it also depends whether this thesis is written as part of a psychology course or a sociology course or a philosophy course – you get the picture. Here’s why – – sociology says that morality is internal and it is up to one’s self to decide his own morals. You are not obligated to any moral obligation unless you choose to do so because morals are your own. Very close to morality is what sociology calls, “ethics.” Ethics are a collection of principles that society has deemed appropriate. Even if you have no qualms about killing someone (you see no moral difficulty killing someone if you believe that they deserve to die – they shot your friends father). You may be put in prison or even sentenced to death because ethically in your society, killing is wrong.
The conclusion in your case is that you have no moral obligation because you choose to have no moral obligation because that’s how I moral obligation is an individual personal decision. What I just wrote can get you in or out of trouble when making a final statement to whatever conclusions you desire. Example, you may believe that you have no moral obligation to help the sick but the society in which we live has decided that ethically your society as a whole has a moral obligation to do so. Therefore they assess your home on its value and you pay let’s say 2% of that in taxes which is used to build a hospital pay doctors and pay nurses at a public facility. This is not your morality it is collectively your society’s morality. Just remember to mumble very loudly – that’s not my morality you are forcing the ethics of this society upon me. By separating ethics and morality you can use a backdoor approach to justify whatever position you choose to take.1
- Show AllShow Less
Most Helpful Guy
It seems philosophically you subscribe to Negative Rights over Positive Rights. Negative rights are for example if you see someone drowning you aren't obligated to save that person who is drowning even if you're able to. Positive rights would make you morally obligated to rescue a person if you are capable or it's within your means to do. In fact it could be a crime not to help. Most of the US constitution deals with negative rights with a few exceptions. Having the right to an attorney is one of those positive rights examples.
You can explain that from a philosophical point of view and why you value one over the other. How kindness should be optional and not mandatory. You can explain why you think that's a morally superior viewpoint in your opinion and its effect on society.1