|
Why Care? Chan, Lik Hang Nick Course title: Issues in Applied Ethics, offered by the School of Philosophy Date: June 2006 Ø Introduction There are people who earn billions a year and enjoy their lives with luxurious food, cars, houses and all that. Meanwhile, there are people dying due to the lack of food, medical care and all that. Figures can be easily drawn to support this. (For example, see Küng, 1991, p.2; Singer, 1972, p.229-230; Singer, 2002, p.165-167. More recent figures can be found in the Oxfam International or the ONE Campaign web site.) It seems to me that this world is very sick. If I say thou shalt care, I'm likely to be challenged by the question: "why?" I am going to explore this problem. I shall start this essay by explaining the concept of global ethics. Several philosophers' views, varying from the ancient Chinese to modern Western thoughts, will be discussed. We will examine why should and how do we care about others. Then, I will attempt to answer the question: to what extent is the western world responsible for alleviating hunger and sickness due to lack of basic needs in third world countries? Both individual and state responsibilities will be mentioned. We will see we ought to help, but setting a minimum value is unattainable. Ø The concept of global ethics I shall introduce several concepts or idea of global ethics. Mencius and Mozi think that human beings do care about others. Caring varies from families, lover, and friends to the whole group. Then we will look at Kant's two divisions of duties. Next, Singer and Küng's recent ideas on global ethics will be mentioned. The
idea of global ethics can be traced back to ancient China, though
they did not use the term "global." Mencius believes that
there are four 'sprouts,'
namely ren, yi, li, and zhi. In
particular, as Shun writes:
The idea of Mencius is that, human concerns each other because of Ren, that is, benevolence or humaneness. For him, Ren is a predisposition that every human shares (Shun, 2004, internet). In contrast with Mencius, Mozi does not think that human have a predisposition (Shun, 2004, internet). Despite this, Mozi does think that care is important. According to Fraser, Mozi argues that "to achieve social order and exemplify the key virtue of ren (humanity, goodwill), people must inclusively care for each other, having as much concern for others' lives, families, and communities as for their own, and in their relations with others seek to benefit them" (Fraser, 2002, internet). By "inclusive care" Mozi means that care should not be limited to individual. Instead, care should be extended. Moreover, as Fraser puts, Mozi "maintain[s] that we are to care equally for everyone, but to benefit some people more and others less, depending on the nature of their relation to us. Equal care does not entail equal treatment. How we treat people is determined by the notion of right (yi), which is based on intrinsic goods such as social order (zhi), the Mohists' conception of which, as we saw above, entails that we do more for those standing in close relationships to us" (Fraser, 2002, internet). In light of the discussion above, I reckon that what is the predisposition does not really matter. What does really matter is what we should do. Let's say humans are genetically selfish, does it imply that we have to act selfishly? No. Let's say humans are born to be benevolent. But then, how come there are murders, robbers, and all that in our world? Even if we are born to be evil, we have to examine whether we should be evil. It follows that we should examine the reasons behind caring about others, instead of asking, are we born to be like this? I shall discuss the reasoning in the next section. Now let's look at a few modern views. Kant divides duties into two sorts: I. duties of good-will, or benevolence. II. Duties of indebtedness, or rectitude (2001, p,177). These are two key duties. The first one is based on love. The second one deals with righteous. The first one is coupled with passion. The second one is coupled with reason. We care about our family, lover and friends because we love them. We care about others by justification. Thus, if we assume that every human have the same rights, and someone lacks a certain right, we should help him or her whenever possible. In One World Peter Singer stresses that we are now living in a globalised world. Issues that we are facing affect the whole planet. "Whatever it is we value about political equality, including the opportunity to participate in the decisions that affect us, globalisation means that we should value equality between societies, and at the global level, at lease as much as we value political equality within one society. Globalisation also means that there can be oppressive relationships at the global scale, as well as within a society" (2002, p.189-190). The point here is that we are in the age of globalisation. We have relatively easy access to the other part of the planet. Given that every human beings share the same earth, our values should be extended to the global level. So, what is global ethics? As Hans Küng states, "Global Ethic is nothing but the necessary minimum of common values, standards and basic attitudes." He claims that if there are global solutions to the globalisation of the economy, technology and the media then there should be globalisation of ethics: "no uniform ethical system ('ethics'), but a necessary minimum of shared ethical values, basic attitudes and criteria ('ethic') to which all regions, nations and interest groups can commit themselves. In other words there is a need for a common basic human ethic" (2005, internet). He also argues that "[c]alling for global responsibility is first and foremost the opposite of calling for what is mere ethic of success: it is the opposite of an action for which the end sanctifies the means and for which whatever functions, brings profit, power or enjoyment, is good" (1991, p.29). Noting that computer cannot save humankind; and more laws, regulations, psychology or sociology cannot improve human beings (1991, p.32-34). Küng concludes that there can be no ordering of the world without a world ethic, that is, a global ethic (1991, p.34; 2005, internet). Ø Responsibilities of the individual and the state I have outlined a few concepts of global ethics. Moving from theories to practices, we shall discuss our responsibilities. I shall examine in this section why we are responsible and what we ought to do. Throughout the discussion, bear in mind the fact that there are people suffering and dying because of the lack of basic needs. "Rights and responsibilities can certainly be distinguished neatly, but they cannot be separated from each other," Küng argues (2005, internet). We cannot measure them quantitatively, but they are highly related. We have not only rights but also responsibilities. It is suggested that, a Declaration of Human Responsibilities should be proclaimed. I find this idea not to be bad, but not necessary. For there are people who follow rules mechanically but they do not justify why should they follow those rules. So, presenting the concept so that people understand it is more important. Peter Singer observes that both individual and state are not responding to this problem in a significant way (1972, p.229). He argues that we ought to do something. The premises can be formulated as follows: P1: "suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad" (1972, p.231); P2: "if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it" (1972, p.231); P3: proximity and distance need not to be taken into account (1972, p.231-232); P4: the number of people, who could possibly help, makes no significant difference (1972, p.232). I
agree with Singer that the first premise is less debatable, for if
you find this point unconvincing, you need not to read further. The
third premise is fairly obvious too. Given that we are at the age of
data and information explosion, communicating to the third world
countries is not hard. In order to help a child in Africa, you do
not need to take a flight to Africa. There are dozens of
organization that may assist you. If you accept the assumption that
all humans are equal, there is no huge difference between helping
someone in your country and someone physically far away from you.
Thus, proximity or distance is not an excuse. Another excuse is
that, "I am not the only person who can help." Singer
points out that numbers do matter if the conclusion is: "if
everyone in circumstances like mine were to give £5,
I would have no obligation to give more than £5"
(1972, p.233). This is a hypothetical conclusion. In reality, it is
rarely that everyone give £5.
But certainly, the more you give, the less the suffering. The next
question is, how much do we ought to give? Five percent of our
income? Twenty percent? I tend to leave this question open, because
it is impossible to set a rule like this. For example, a minimum of
five percent is set. If a couple had already spent more than ninety
five percent of their income on tax, food, kid's
education, housing and transportation; five percent would be really
harsh for them. So, we ought to give but no limit should be set. The first, third and fourth premises are resolved. I now turn to the second premise. Singer claims that "we ought to give the money away, and it is wrong not to do so" (1972, p.235). To make it clear and rule out excuses, I would like to restate the hypothetical condition that "if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant" (1972, p.235). The implication here is that if we are afford to but don't give, we are morally wrong. Singer once gave a dilemma: "A man owns a very expensive Bugatti car that threatens to be destroyed by a runaway train. Meanwhile on a different track, a small child is trapped between the lines. Would it be all right for the man to redirect the train to save his luxury car and thereby kill the child?" (ABC Video Program, 2003, p.4) Another question is: "what is the ethical distinction between a Brazilian who sells a homeless child to organ peddlers and an American who already has a TV and upgrades to a better one - knowing that the money could be donated to an organization that would use it to save the lives of kids in need?" (Singer, 2000, p.119) It would be wrong to save the car instead of the child, or get a TV and kill a child. Noting that "distance" and "numbers" are not excuses, we ought to help people in third world countries instead of spending on luxury stuff. Therefore, if the premises are sound, it turns out that: C: we ought to prevent suffering and death in the third would countries, whenever it does not violate anything at the same level of moral significance. So far I have focused on responsibilities of the individual. Indeed, the principle can be applied to the state or government. The individual has responsibility, so does the state. Again, setting limit is unattainable. But careful consideration should be taken when the budget is drafted. Let's focus on a few practical suggestions. Economics professor Pranab Bardhan makes a good one. He proposes that "[a] program to permit larger numbers of unskilled workers into rich countries as 'guest workers' would do more to reduce world poverty than other forms of international integration, such as trade liberalization, can" (2006, internet). I would like to add a point. We should treat the worker as human, but not slave. You may find this statement weird, but racism does exist and it should be avoided. That's one of the short-term solutions. A long-term solution would be education in the western countries. By letting more people understand the situation and our responsibilities, consequences will be changed gradually. Therefore, if we accept that suffering and death from lack of basic needs are bad and we are affordable to prevent these happening, we ought to help unless it collapses with something that has same level of moral significance. We have rights. Responsibilities come together. Physical distance, race, nationality and religion are not excuses. Ø Conclusion In this essay, I have discussed several concepts of global ethics. Mencius, Mozi, Kant, Singer and Küng's philosophical view have been outlined. It is better to care about others. And indeed, we have responsibilities to help those who lack basic needs in third world countries. We have also seen that distance does not really matter, because it is so easy give a hand. These days, many organizations assist you. Without sacrificing anything at the same level of moral importance, we ought to help whenever possible. We ought to give out money, but setting a minimum is not necessary and not possible. One day, I chatted with my friend. When I uttered the word "ethic," he shouted "nonsense" immediately and changed our conversation topic. There was no room for me to give explanation. Some people hold the view that they can do whatever they want to, given that they do not break the law. To me, education and ethics can make a difference. After all, if I were asked why do we need global ethic, I would say: for a better world. Ethic is not a law, but something beyond law.
Acknowledgment I thank Ella
Peek for her teaching. Bibliography ABC
Video Program. (2003) Singer: A Dangerous Mind. Retrieved
June 7, 2006, from http://abc.net.au/programsales/download/ Bardhan,
P. (2006) Does Globalization Help or Hurt the World's Poor? Scientific
American. (April, 2006) Retrieved June 8, 2006, from http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID= Fraser, C. (2002) Mohism. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2002 Edition). Retrieved June 5, 2006, from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2002/entries/mohism/ Kant, I. (2001) Lectures on Ethics. (trans. Heath, P.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Küng, K. (1991) Global Responsibility: In Search of a New World Ethic. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company. Küng,
K. (2005) Global Ethic and Human Responsibilities. Retrieved June 3,
2006, from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusareas/global_ethics/ Singer, P. (1972) Famine, Affluence, and Morality. Philosophy and Public Affairs. Vol.1, No.3. Singer, P. (2000) The Singer Solution to World Poverty. Writings on an Ethical Life. London: Fourth Estate. Singer, P. (2002) One World: The Ethics of Globalisation. Melbourne: Text Publishing. Shun, K. L. (2004) Mencius. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2004 Edition). Retrieved June 5, 2006, from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2004/entries/mencius/ |
 |
|
