The question of whether wealthy individuals or nations are morally obliged to help those that are in dire need of assistance to alleviate their suffering has drawn the attention of various scholars with conflicting opinions. However, the issue needs a liberal approach where the views of one side of the idealists are not forcefully imposed on the other. Those of the opinion that wealthy nations must help the poor should be given the freedom to exercise their ideas while those of a contrary view should not be condemned. Singer’s opinion is that in their moral obligation to help developing nations, wealthy nations shouldn’t impose their ideologies and commands on the beneficiaries for their selfish interests (Chapter 14, n.d). He asserts that wealthy nations have used the guise of aid to fleece and oppress developing countries.
Arthur in his argument for moral code declares that code needs to be realistic such that the rightful assumptions about people are in place (Chapter 14, n.d). The moral code also needs to account for entitlements. These entitlements include rights and deserts where rights are the needs of the country while deserts refer to the range to which the beneficiaries deserve the aid. The moral code should not ignore consequences of actions. Among the three assertions by Arthur on the practicality of moral code, the most compelling is the need for moral code to account for entitlements. Entitlements ensure that wealthy nations don't ignore the needs of their citizens while fulfilling their obligations to disadvantaged nations.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
O'Neill explains that in an attempt to achieve the real purpose of helping others, they must be treated as ends but not means. Treating others as ends refers to in-depth desire to help as opposed to helping so that to achieve a particular purpose or benefit. Treating others as ends may encompass expecting no benefits in return for offering the aid, unlike treating them as means where the real purpose is not to help but achieve a certain objective. Certainly, humans have limits to their knowledge which implies that there are no clearly defined explanations for certain truths or lies. Thus, on the duty of beneficence, there is not a particular universal approach.
References
Chapter 14. (n.d). Duty of Beneficence
