Some moral philosophers argue that spending some of your resources—without significantly affecting your…

Question

Some moral philosophers argue that spending some of your resources—without significantly affecting your financial stability—to help other people who badly suffer is our moral duty and not merely a matter of charity. Justify this claim by explaining the distinction between duty and charity.

Ghissu Editorial · Accepted Answer

Helping those who badly suffer, when it costs nothing of comparable moral importance, is a duty because a duty is owed and its breach is a wrong, while charity is optional generosity beyond duty. Peter Singer's drowning-child argument (1972) shows that refusing such help resembles letting a child drown.

**Introduction**

Peter Singer asked whether anyone would let a child drown in a shallow pond to keep their clothes dry. In "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" (1972) he argued that if we can prevent something very bad without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought to do it.

**Duty and Charity: Where the Line Lies**

SKETCH: comparison | Duty vs Charity
a: Duty
b: Charity
- Obligatory :: Optional
- Omission is wrong :: Omission is blameless
- Owed to the sufferer :: Gift of the giver
- Rooted in justice :: Rooted in generosity
- Zakat :: Sadaqah

1. **Duty**: What we owe; failing it is a wrong, and the sufferer has a claim on us, as in Kant's acting from obligation rather than inclination.
2. **Charity**: **Supererogatory** good beyond duty, which earns praise when given but no blame when withheld, leaving the sufferer dependent on the donor's mood.

**Why Helping the Suffering Is a Duty**

1. **The sacrifice test**: When giving does not threaten our stability, nothing of comparable importance is lost, so refusing resembles letting the child drown.
2. **Luck and justice**: Rawls called advantages of birth morally arbitrary, and his difference principle asks that they also serve the worst-off.
3. **Trusteeship**: Gandhi saw the rich as trustees of surplus wealth, and the Gita (3.12) calls one who takes without giving back a thief.
4. **Institutions agree**: Zakat is an obligatory pillar of Islam, and Section 135 of the Companies Act 2013 made corporate giving a legal duty of 2 percent of average net profit.

**Conclusion**

The claim is justified. Where help costs nothing of comparable moral worth and spares another severe suffering, giving is a duty of justice, not a gift of kindness; charity begins only in sacrifices beyond our stability.

Some moral philosophers argue that spending some of your resources—without significantly affecting your financial stability—to help other people who badly suffer is our moral duty and not merely a matter of charity. Justify this claim by explaining the distinction between duty and charity.

Model answer

Practise this question

Dimensions of ethics13 questions

Ghissu