If anyone recalls in yesterday's class, Professor Tresan proposed a question regarding saving someone's life and how the distance may or may not play into how someone makes a decision in saving another's life. The question proposed was that if there were a button that could save the life of someone that I can visibly and perceptually witness suffering(from lack of food, shelter, or medical care) and there was a button that could save their life, would I do it? The other question was that if there were someone whom we are aware of their suffering(from lack of food, shelter, or medical care), would I press the button? In principle it seems to be that we are morally required to do so when taking into account the Peter Singer's argument that was discussed during Kyle Zhang's presentation. What would bring us to not press the button in the case of someone that is not visibly suffering? Is it merely because it is not visible and we are not in proximity to them? It clearly brings about some psychological concerns that arise from the initial question. In other words, we are more inclined or it is argued that we are more inclined to save a person in proximity to us as opposed to someone who is distant. In this post I seek to spark discussion. I believe that some people refuse to give to those suffering from lack of food, shelter, or medical care because they think the benefits will only be temporary and not lasting. I also argue that in many cases say if we dedicate to those suffering across the globe, that there has to be a strong sense of trust that the help offered is received to those whom are suffering.
Note:I apologize for using caps, but you can't italicize in comments.
ReplyDeleteSo the thing is about this, is that I don't think distance matters one bit. I don't think it changes anything in terms of moral obligation whatsoever. If we are morally obligated to help relieve suffering when we are aware of the suffering (even if we aren't aware of the SUBJECT of the suffering), then distance is irrelevant. I see no way that awareness of the subject changes moral obligation. I've heard no argument for it, and I can't think of one that's plausible.
What can be noted is that awareness of the subject certainly does have a psychological effect. If I know or see a person who is visibly (or through some other obvious, powerful sense) suffering, and I have the ability to help them, then it may be MORE LIKELY that I help relieve their suffering, but it does not seem to change any moral OBLIGATION.
In response to the late part of your posts, I think a large part of it is knowing HOW to help. There are organizations, but what you said is precisely right; how do people know they can trust those organizations? Also, how accessible are these organizations?
It seems there's a funny little trick going on that in order to help, one of two things happens. 1- You have to find them and then help- which causes a drawback of inconvenience (which most people will use as an excuse) or 2- They come to you asking you to help, which then has the drawback of being invasive or perhaps a little begging (which people would also use as an excuse).
Another thing I thought about is planning. If A asks B for a donation of a dollar, B would have to think about what the cost of losing that dollar to him is, and often something along the lines of "Oh I was going to use this dollar on this item, and now I won't be able to" comes up in thought, which would make B hesitant. In general it seems as if people are generally reluctant even if it is the right thing to do.
You bring up a very good point. Yes, if you care about helping others you will also be concerned of whether the organizations that help them actually transmit your help to them (if they are far). But I do not really view this as an impediment to helping. Especially today that there are many ways of communicating in spite of long distances. I think that the second concern is something that comes with the first concern, not something that justifies not having the first.
ReplyDelete