Ethics

The intolerable earthquake in Haiti that took thousands of lives brings up an important question: What obligations do we owe to other people? Virtually all of us believe that, when no comparable sacrifice is required, we have a moral duty to help those we encounter in dire need. If one were to let a child drown he would be unanimously regarded as a morally reprehensible individual, yet those who do precisely the same thing when they ignore the plights of those in distant countries are not viewed negatively by many. How can we account for this inconsistency? What are we morally obligated to do to help those in Haiti?

Comments

I wonder why you think that those outside Haiti who ignore the disaster there are letting harm happen which they could otherwise prevent. They might think that aid can do no good, they might think that they are better to give money to causes they genuinely understand and can supervise more directly, or they might not have the resources free that allow them to give. It is not like letting a child drown when one could prevent that from happening, presumably because it is happening near to you and you can swim. With Haiti you have to believe a lot of things about how charity operates and whether it works properly before you can justify giving money. Also, you might decide that if you have limited funds then it is better to give to something much more unfashionable than the cause which is the flavor of the day. You do not in that situation ignore the vast human suffering, you just take the position that you can only do so much, and this is not something which you wish to support, given your limited means.

Read another response by Oliver Leaman

Read another response about Ethics