Ethics and the Save People Hypothesis

Northern Arizona University |

SAVING PEOPLE NEAR OR FAR |

The Unimportance of Distance |

|

MAXIMILLION ANDREWS |

12/5/2009 |

|

Are we obligated, or morally required, to help a needy person who is physically distant from us and who is in need of help? This very question has stirred much debate in the area of philosophy. It has been the center piece of all argumentative thought when it comes to helping the poor in distant places. In this paper I will be presenting and analyzing the points of two different philosophers who address the matter of distance in two different ways. Philosopher Peter Singer argues that our intuitive beliefs that we ought to help others in need do not matter distance wise. Whereas Philosopher F.M. Kamm argues that our intuitive beliefs that we ought to help others in need do matter distance wise. In doing this we will find a difference in how these intuitive beliefs are related to the matter of distance. Finally, we will use these two views and combine them to form an argument which will help us in deciding who to aid.

First we shall talk briefly about some basics. This will ease the understanding and comprehension of the material we will later explore. Talking about the matter of distance requires that we first understand how morality is related to it. What does it mean to be morally required to do something? To simplify things, we may say that morality is a belief concerning matters of what is moral and immoral. You may think of moral as “good”, or ethical and immoral as “bad” or unethical. In more absolute terms, morality encompasses the right and the wrong. So to say that one is morally required to do something, is to say that you are required to do what morality believes is right. As well, to be obligated to do something, or to have a duty to do something, is to say that you are required to do it. Accordingly, to not do what you are morally required to do would be wrong.

Hopefully we now have a good grasp on what...