Topics Ethics

Question Asymmetrical Morality Hello, I would like to know if there are ethical frameworks that can at the same time consider “good” performing action X, and not consider “bad” not performing it. The above does not seem possible with utilitarian frameworks. To give one example, it strikes me as odd that while many people would consider devolving a part of one’s salary to help the poor a “good” thing, they wouldn’t say that not devolving it is “bad”. Good if you do, OK if you don’t ... Thanks in advance.

Accepted:
November 15, 2008

Comments

Yes, there are such views. Some ethicists deploy the controversial notion of the supererogatory: of conduct beyond the call of duty. They might give an example such as this. If you risk your life to save a child from a burning building, you have done something very good. But if you decide not to risk your life for the child, you have done nothing wrong.

Many ethicists also recognize imperfect duties. These are duties that leave the agent some discretion about when to act on the duty in question and how much to do. For example, we have a duty to help the poor. But we are not duty-bound to do as much as we can for every poor person. It is wrong (for a reasonably well-to-do person) never to help at all. But it may not be wrong to do less than one might and less than others similarly situated. There could then be persons who fulfill their imperfect duties alongside other, similarly situated persons who do more. The latter act especially well, but the former do not act badly.