more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
A fundamental question in morality is whether we are obligated to help only those we specifically agreed to help, or are we obligated to help others in need, because they are vulnerable?
Gist of Idea
Are we only obligated by agreement, or should we always help the weak?
Source
Hugh LaFollette (Introductions in 'Ethics in Practice' [2002], p.061)
Book Ref
'Ethics in Practice (2nd Ed)', ed/tr. LaFollette,Hugh [Blackwell 2002], p.61
A Reaction
[He is considering J.J. Thomson's defence of abortion] The first option sounds extraordinary. If I don't make any agreements at all, then I cease to be a moral being? Not help strangers when they fall over?
| 20877 | Errors in moral practice might be inconsistent or inappropriate principles, or inappropriate application [LaFollette] |
| 20878 | We can discuss the criteria of a judgment, or the weight given to them, or their application [LaFollette] |
| 20879 | Too many options may open us to unwanted pressures, like being paid very little [LaFollette] |
| 20880 | Should people be forced to make choices? [LaFollette] |
| 20881 | The act/omission distinction is important for duties, but less so for consequences [LaFollette] |
| 20886 | Are we only obligated by agreement, or should we always help the weak? [LaFollette] |